THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE 

A  COMPLETE  HISTORY 

(REVISED) 


MONROE  DOCTRINE 


m 


A  COMPLETE  HISTORY 

(REVISED) 


COMPILED   BY 

CHARLES  KOHLER 

SAVANKAH,   GA. 


Copyright,  1922,  by 

CHARLES  KOHLER 

Savannah,  Ga. 


Press  of 

J.  J.  Little  &  Ives  Company 
New  York,  U.  S.  A. 


The  American  Foreign  Policy  Announced  by 
Washington. 


WHAT  proved  to  be  the  basis  of  the  foreign  policy  of 
the  United  States  for  more  than  one  hundred  years 
is  found  in  Washington's  Farewell  Address.  "Observe  good 
faith  and  justice  toward  all  nations.,  cultivate  peace  and 
harmony  with  all.  ...  In  the  execution  of  such  a  plan 
nothing  is  more  essential  than  that  permanent,  inveterate 
antipathies  against  particular  nations,  and  passionate  attach- 
ments for  others  should  be  excluded;  and  that  in  place  of 
them,  just  and  amicable  feelings  toward  all  should  be  culti- 
vated. The  nation  which  indulges  toward  another  an  habitual 
hatred,  or  an  habitual  fondness,  is  in  some  degree  a  slave. 
.  .  .  Antipathy  in  one  nation  against  another  disposes  each 
more  readily  to  offer  insult  and  injury,  to  lay  hold  of  slight 
causes  of  umbrage,  and  to  be  haughty  and  intractable  when 
accidental  or  trifling  occasions  of  dispute  occur.  .  .  .  Against 
the  insidious  wiles  of  foreign  influence,  the  jealousy  of  a  free 
people  ought  to  be  constantly  awake ;  since  history  and  experi- 
ence prove  that  foreign  influence  is  one  of  the  most  baneful 
foes  of  republican  government.  .  .  .  Europe  has  a  set  of 
primary  interests  which  to  us  have  none  or  a  very  remote  rela- 
tion. Hence  she  must  be  engaged  in  frequent  controversies, 
the  causes  of  which  are  essentially  foreign  to  our  concerns. 
Hence  therefore  it  must  be  unwise  in  us  to  implicate  our- 
selves by  artificial  ties  in  the  ordinary  vicissitudes  of  her  poli- 
tics, or  the  ordinary  combinations  and  collisions  of  her  friend- 
ships or  enmities.  Our  detached  and  distant  situation  invites 
and  enables  us  to  pursue  a  different  course.  If  we  remain  one 

3 

515719 


"  government  the  period  is  not  far  off 
when  we  may  defy  material  injury  from  external  annoyance ; 
when  we  may  take  such  an  attitude  as  will  cause  the  neu- 
trality we  may  at  any  time  resolve  upon,  to  be  scrupulously 
respected;  when  belligerent  nations,  under  the  impossibility 
of  making  acquisitions  upon  us,  will  not  lightly  hazard  the 
giving  us  provocation;  when  we  may  choose  peace  or  war,  as 
our  interest  guided  by  justice  shall  counsel.  ...  It  is  our 
true  policy  to  steer  clear  of  permanent  alliances  with  any  por- 
tion of  the  foreign  world." 

As  Europe  guards  so  jealously  the  "balance  of  power,"  or 
"status  quo"  on  her  continent  as  to  deem  any  alteration  of  it 
by  any  power  a  "casus  lelli"  so  the  United  States  regards  the 
sentiment  of  "America  for  the  Americans,"  crystallized  into 
the  Monroe  Doctrine. 

It  was  partly  in  pursuance  of  this  policy,  as  well  as  to 
control  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi  Kiver,  that  President 
Jefferson  decided  on  the  Louisiana  Purchase.  That  portion 
of  what  is  now  almost  the  center  of  the  United  States,  Jhaving 
already  been  ceded  from  Spain  to  France,  was  again  in  danger 
of  having  its  ownership  transferred  to  another  foreign  nation. 
France,  being  at  war  with  England,  would  in  all  probability 
have  had  the  Louisiana  territory  wrested  from  her.  Jefferson, 
by  threatening  to  join  England,  was  able  to  obtain  that 
province  from  Napoleon  for  fifteen  million  dollars.  Subse- 
quent events  proved  the  wisdom  of  Jefferson's  action  in  pro- 
curing that  magnificent  domain  for  such  a  paltry  sum. 

As  late  as  October  21,  1823  Jefferson  wrote  President 
Monroe  "our  first  and  fundamental  maxim  should  be  never 
to  entangle  ourselves  in  the  broils  of  Europe.  Our  second, 
never  to  suffer  Europe  to  intermeddle  with  cis-atlantic  affairs. 
America,  north  and  south,  has  a  set  of  interests  distinct  from 
those  of  Europe  and  peculiarly  her  own.  She  should  there- 
fore have  a  system  of  her  own,  separate  and  apart  from  that 
of  Europe."  Jefferson's  views  coincided  with  those  of  prac- 
tically all  the  prominent  Americans. 

4 


Although  that  sentiment  of  "America  for  the  Americans" 
was  gradually  but  surely  assuming  a  concrete  form,  it  was 
partially  due  to  British  suggestion  that  it  developed  so  sud- 
denly under  President  Monroe  into  that  important,  vital 
doctrine  known  by  his  name.  For  with  the  powerful  support 
of  England,  it  became  an  insurmountable  barrier  to  any 
future  European  colonization  of  America;  and  in  the  course 
of  time  even  restricting  England  in  her  attempts  at  seizing 
disputed  Venezuelan  territory  without  arbitration.  As  Sec- 
retary Olney  noted  in  his  dispatch  to  Ambassador  Bayard  in 
the  Venezuelan  controversy  "its  pronouncement  by  the  Monroe 
administration  at  that  particular  time  was  unquestionably 
due  to  the  inspiration  of  Great  Britain."  All  else  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding,  to  England  who  may  or  may  not 
desire  the  honor,  is  to  be  given  the  credit  of  having  suggested 
it,  although  in  a  different  form  and  for  her  own  selfish  pur- 
poses. However  much  Americans  may  have  felt  such  a  policy 
desirable  for  their  institutions  the  United  States  was  not  then 
able  to  defy  all  Europe  until  supported  by  a  strong  maritime 
power. 

Its  announcement  on  December  2,  1823  is  due  to  what 
seemed  an  exigency  in  European  politics  at  that  time  which 
affected  British  interests  materially.  The  Czar  of  Russia 
formed  an  alliance  between  his  country,  Austria,  Prussia  and 
later  France  and  England  for  "mutual  protection"  against 
domestic  revolutions.  In  congress  assembled ,  these  govern- 
ments about  1820  decided  to  assist  each  other  in  maintaining 
the  then  existing  dynasties,  also  to  support  each  other  in  the 
suppression  of  their  rebellious  subjects.  Although  lukewarm, 
England  at  first  acquiesced  in  this  "Holy  Alliance"  and 
France  sent  troops  into  Spain  to  suppress  a  rebellion  against 
Ferdinand  VII. 

When  George  Canning  succeeded  Castlereagh  as  Prime 
Minister,  he  feared  that  British  interests  might  be  threatened 
by  the  alliance  and  finally  assumed  an  unfriendly  attitude, 
thereby  also  posing  as  the  friend  of  liberty. 

5 


About  1810  the  American  colonies  of  Spain  began  to  revolt 
and  declare  themselves  free  and  independent,  and  when  Can- 
ning acceded  to  power  several  Spanish-American  republics 
had  been  formally  recognized  by  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States  as  free  and  independent  governments.  Canning  drew 
France  into  an  agreement  with  England  respecting  Spanish- 
American  countries.  It  is  believed  that  Canning  desired  a 
partnership  with  the  United  States  in  regard  to  Central  and 
South  America.  If  so,  President  Monroe  certainly  dis- 
appointed him  for  his  famous  message  says  nothing  favorable 
to  an  alliance  with  England  or  any  other  country. 

Great  Britain  had  built  up  a  considerable  trade  with 
Spain's  former  American  colonies  which  she  was  unable  to 
do,  so  long  as  they  were  under  the  Spanish  yoke.  Conse- 
quently when  Spain  attempted  to  reconquer  these  colonies 
(whose  independence  she  had  never  acknowledged),  it  was 
regarded  by  England  as  a  positive  menace  to  her  commerce. 
Canning  feared  that  Spain  intended  enlisting  the  active 
assistance  of  the  governments  forming  the  Holy  Alliance  in 
her  behalf.  He  hoped  that  the  United  States  and  England 
might  appropriate  such  countries  of  South  America  as  were 
agreeable  to  each.  But  Monroe  would  not  enter  wholly  into 
his  scheme.  On  the  23d  day  of  August,  1823  Richard  Rush, 
the  American  Minister  to  the  court  of  St.  James,  wrote  John 
Quincy  Adams,  Secretary  of  State  under  Monroe,  "I  yester- 
day received  from  Mr.  Canning  a  note,  headed  'private  and 
confidential',  setting  before  me  in  a  more  distinct  form  the 
proposition  respecting  South  American  affairs,  which  he  com- 
municated in  conversation  on  the  16th.  The  tone  of  earnest- 
ness in  Mr.  Canning's  note  and  the  force  of  some  of  his 
expressions  naturally  start  the  inference  that  the  British 
Cabinet  cannot  be  without  its  serious  apprehensions  that 
ambitious  enterprises  are  meditated  against  the  independence 
of  the  South  American  States.  Whether  by  France  alone  I 
cannot  say  now  on  any  authentic  grounds.  The  private, 
confidential  note  of  Mr.  George  Canning,  Secretary  of  State 

6 


for  foreign  affairs  in  his  Britannic  Majesty's  Cabinet,  sug- 
gests :  Is  not  the  moment  come  when  our  governments  might 
understand  each  other,  as  do  the  Spanish- American  colonies? 
And  if  we  can  arrive  at  such  an  understanding,  would  it  not 
be  expedient  for  ourselves  and  beneficial  for  all  the  world, 
that  the  principles  of  it  should  be  clearly  settled  and  plainly 
•avowed?"  It  was  claimed  that  Spain,  without  assistance 
from  some  other  country,  was  unable  to  subdue  South 
America ;  that  the  United  States  was  in  a  better  position  than 
Great  Britain  to  make  the  announcement  against  Spain ;  that 
_  England  would  support  the  United  States,  if  necessary,  in 
this  matter.  That  after  Spain  was  exhausted  in  fruitless  en- 
deavor to  reconquer  her  lost  colonies  England  and  the  United 
States  might  divide  them  up  among  themselves.  England 
had  claimed  the  Mosquito  Coast  of  Central  America.  Al- 
though Mr.  Rush  approved  of  Canning's  suggestions  he 
realized  that  they  were  of  by  far  too  much  importance  to  give 
assurances  off-hand  and  could  only  await  the  American 
Government's  decision  in  the  matter.  He  was  satisfied,  how- 
ever, that  President  Monroe  would  approve  them. 

Adams  of  course  laid  it  before  the  President  and  his 
cabinet. 

As  England  aimed  principally  at  France  and  the  Holy 
Alliance,  regarding  them  as  inimical  to  her  interests,  and  as 
intending  to  do  the  very  thing  that  she  herself  desired,  i.  e. 
control  Central  and  South  America,  Monroe  would  not  agree 
to  do  exactly  as  suggested. 

The  danger  which  he  and  his  compatriots  saw  was  "the 
aggressive  spirit  of  European  despotism,  and  the  boon  was 
our  freedom,  our  republican  government,  our  constitution 
and  all  the  blessings  flowing  from  and  guaranteed  by  them/' 

If  Monroe  had  any  leanings  in  any  direction  at  all,  he 
rather  favored  France.  However  as  he,  Calhoun  and  the 
other  Cabinet  Officers  were  "very  much  afraid  that  the  Holy 
Alliance  would  restore  all  of  South  America  to  Spain,"  he, 
after  due  consideration,  promulgated  his  famous  doctrine. 

7 


The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

From  his  message  of  December  2nd,  1823. 

AT  the  proposal  of  the  Russian  Imperial  Government, 
made  through  the  minister  residing  here  (Washing- 
ton), full  power  and  instructions  have  been  transmitted  to 
the  minister  of  the  United  States  at  St.  Petersburg  to 
arrange,  by  amicable  negotiations,  the  respective  rights  and 
interests  of  the  two  nations  on  the  northwest  coast  of  this 
continent.  A  similar  proposal  had  been  made  by  his  imperial 
majesty  to  the  government  of  Great  Britain,  which  has  like- 
wise been  acceded  to.  The  government  of  the  United  States 
have  been  desirous,  by  this  friendly  proceeding,  of  manifest- 
ing the  great  value  which  they  have  invariably  attached  to 
the  friendship  of  the  Emperor  and  their  solicitude  to  culti- 
vate the  best  understanding  with  his  government.  In  the 
discussion  to  which  this  interest  has  given  rise  and  in  the 
arrangements  by  which  they  may  terminate,  the  occasion 
has  been  judged  proper  for  asserting  as  a  principle  in  which 
the  rights  and  interests  of  the  United  States  are  involved, 
that  the  American  continents,  by  the  free  and  independent 
condition  which  they  have  assumed  and  maintained,  are 
henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as  subjects  for  future 
colonization  by  any  European  power/' 

******* 
"It  was  stated  at  the  commencement  of  the  last  session 
that  a  great  effort  was  then  making  in  Spain  and  Portugal 
to  improve  the  condition  of  the  people  of  those  countries, 
and  that  it  appeared  to  be  conducted  with  extraordinary 
moderation.  It  need  scarcely  be  remarked  that  the  result 
has  been  so  far  very  different  from  what  was  then  anticipated. 
Of  events  in  that  quarter  of  the  globe,  with  which  we  have 

8 


so  much  intercourse  and  from  which  we  derive  our  origin, 
we  have  always  been  anxious  and  interested  spectators.  The 
citizens  of  the  United  States  cherish  sentiments  the  most 
friendly  in  favor  of  the  liberty  and  happiness  of  their  fellow- 
men  on  that  side  of  the  Atlantic. 

"In  the  wars  of  the  European  powers  in  matters  relating 
to  themselves  we  have  never  taken  any  part,  nor  does  it 
comport  with  our  policy  to  do  so.  It  is  only  when  our  rights 
are  invaded  or  seriously  menaced  that  we  resent  injuries  or 
make  preparation  for  our  defense. 

"With  the  movements  in  this  hemisphere  we  are  of  necessity 
more  immediately  connected,  and  by  causes  which  must  be 
obvious  to  all  enlightened  and  impartial  observers.  The 
political  system  of  the  allied  powers  is  essentially  different 
in  this  respect  from  that  of  America.  This  difference  pro- 
ceeds from  that  which  exists  in  their  respective  governments 
and  to  the  defense  of  our  own,  which  has  been  achieved  by 
the  loss  of  so  much  blood  and  treasure,  and  matured  by  the 
wisdom  of  their  most  enlightened  citizens  and  under  which 
we  have  enjoyed  unexampled  felicity,  this  whole  nation  is 
devoted.  We  owe  it,  therefore,  to  candor  and  to  the  amicable 
relations  existing  between  the  United  States  and  those  powers 
to  declare  that  we  should  consider  any  attempt  on  their  part 
to  extend  their  system  to  any  portion  of  this  hemisphere  as 
dangerous  to  our  peace  and  safety.  With  the  existing  colonies 
or  dependencies  of  any  European  power  we  have  not  in- 
terfered and  shall  not  interfere.  But  with  the  Governments 
who  have  declared  their  independence  and  maintained  it,  and 
whose  independence  we  have  on  great  consideration  and  on 
just  principles  acknowledged,  we  could  not  view  any  inter- 
position for  the  purpose  of  oppressing  them  or  controlling 
in  any  other  manner  their  destiny,  by  any  European  power 
in  any  other  light  than  as  the  manifestation  of  an  unfriendly 
disposition  toward  the  United  States.  In  the  war  between 
those  new  Governments  and  Spain  we  declared  our  neutrality 
at  the  time  of  their  recognition,  and  to  this  we  have  adhered, 

9 


and  shall  continue  to  adhere,  provided  no  change  shall  occur 
which,  in  the  judgment  of  the  competent  authorities  of  this 
Government,  shall  make  a  corresponding  change  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States  indispensable  to  their  security. 

"The  late  events  in  Spain  and  Portugal  show  that  Europe 
is  still  unsettled.  Of  this  important  fact  no  stronger  proof 
can  be  adduced  than  that  the  allied  powers  should  have 
thought  it  proper,  on  any  principle  satisfactory  to  them- 
selves, to  have  interposed  by  force  in  the  internal  concerns 
of  Spain.  To  what  extent  such  interposition  may  be  carried, 
on  the  same  principle,  is  a  question  in  which  all  independent 
powers  whose  Governments  differ  from  theirs  are  interested, 
even  those  most  remote,  and  surely  none  more  so  than  the 
United  States.  Our  policy  in  regard  to  Europe,  which  was 
adopted  at  an  early  stage  of  the  wars  which  have  so  long 
agitated  that  quarter  of  the  globe,  nevertheless  remains  the 
same;  which  is  not  to  interfere  in  the  internal  concerns  of 
any  of  its  powers;  to  consider  the  Government  de  facto  as 
the  legitimate  Government  for  us;  to  cultivate  friendly  rela- 
tions with  it  and  to  preserve  those  relations  by  a  frank,  firm 
and  manly  policy,  meeting  in  all  instances  the  just  claims 
of  every  power,  submitting  to  injuries  from  none.  But  in 
regard  to  those  continents  circumstances  are  eminently  and 
conspicuously  different.  It  is  impossible  that  the  allied 
powers  should  extend  their  political  system  to  any  portion  of 
either  continent  without  endangering  our  peace  and  happi- 
ness; nor  can  anyone  believe  that  our  southern  brethren,  if 
left  to  themselves,  would  adopt  it  of  their  own  accord.  It  is 
equally  impossible,  therefore,  that  we  should  behold  such 
interposition  in  any  form  with  indifference.  If  we  look  to 
the  comparative  strength  and  resources  of  Spain  and  those 
new  Governments,  and  their  distance  from  each  other,  it  must 
be  obvious  that  she  can  never  subdue  them.  It  is  still  the 
true  policy  of  the  United  States  to  leave  the  parties  to  them- 
selves in  the  hope  that  other  powers  will  pursue  the  same 


10 


Speaking  of  our  prosperity,  etc.  the  message  says:  "To 
what  then  do  we  owe  these  blessings?  It  is  known  to  all 
that  we  derive  them  from  the  excellence  of  our  institutions. 
Ought  we  not  then  to  adopt  every  measure  which  may  be 
necessary  to  perpetuate  them?" 

Continental  Europe,  on  the  appearance  of  the  Monroe 
Doctrine,  hesitated  in  its  plans.  Spain  called  a  conference 
of  the  allied  powers  in  1824  to  consider  the  project,  but 
England  refused  to  join  them;  after  ascertaining  her 
position  in  this  matter,  they  finally  abandoned  it  entirely. 

The  House  of  Eepresentatives  in  1826  resolved  that  "The 
people  of  the  United  States  should  be  left  free  to  act  in  any 
crisis  in  such  a  manner  as  their  feelings  of  friendship  towards 
those  (Spanish- American)  republics  and  as  their  own  honor 
may  at  the  time  dictate/' 

""The  first  appearance  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  in  the  in- 
ternal politics  of  the  United  States  was  almost  immediately 
after  its  promulgation,  its  bearing  on  the  part  this  country 
should  take  in  the  Panama  Congress  of  the  South  and  Cen- 
tral American  States  in  1826  being  much  discussed.  The 
United  States  was  invited  to  send  delegates  to  this  congress 
and  did  so;  the  controversy  over  the  wisdom  of  this  action 
lasted  for  some  years,  and  was  an  unusually  ardent  one,  but 
resulted  practically  in  nothing. 

The  United  States  also  notified  Europe  at  various  times 
that  it  would  "resist  with  all  its  power  the  transfer  of  the 
island  of  Cuba  to  any  other  power."  Jefferson,  Gallatin, 
Jno.  Quincy  Adams,  Jno.  C.  Calhoun,  Henry  Clay,  Martin 
Van  Buren,  Jas.  Buchanan,  Wm.  L.  Marcy  and  others  stated 
it  plainly.  It  had  been  the  unchallenged  American  doctrine 
that  Cuba  should  remain  with  Spain  unless  it  came  to  the 
United  States;  that  Spain  should  hold  it  in  trust;  that  we 
should  resist  its  transfer  by  the  whole  power  of  the  army 
and  navy,  and  there  it  remained  until  it  became  free  and 
independent. 

Daniel  Webster,  years  afterward,  in  discussing  this  declara- 

11 


tion  by  Mr.  Monroe,  said  that  "it  was  wrapped  up,  he 
would  not  say  in  mysticism,  but  certainly  in  phrase  suffi- 
ciently cautious."  Webster  said  that  the  whole  principle  of 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  was  self-preservation.  "It  is  not  a 
slight  injury  to  our  interests  that  makes  out  a  case;  it  must 
be  danger  to  our  security,  manifest  and  imminent  danger 
to  our  essential  rights  and  our  essential  interests/'  He 
claimed  that  if  the  allied  European  powers  had  sent  an 
armament  against  provinces  remote  from  us  as  Chili  or 
Argentina — the  distance  of  the  scene  of  action  diminishing 
our  apprehension  of  danger,  and  diminishing,  also,  our  means 
of  effectual  interposition — this  might  have  left  us  to  content 
ourselves  with  remonstrance.  But  if  an  army  had  been 
landed  on  the  shores  of  Mexico  and  commenced  war  in  our 
immediate  neighborhood,  the  event  would  have  called  for 
decided  and  immediate  interference  from  us. 

James  K.  Polk  declared  that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  applied 
to  the  North  American  Continent  alone. 

When  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  relating  to  the  Nicaragua 
canal  was  negotiated  in  1850,  this  doctrine  was  again  dis- 
cussed, and  it  was  exploited  in  Congress  and  the  newspapers, 
very  much  in  the  style  with  which  recent  utterances  have 
made  us  familiar,  but  the  well  remembered  instance  of  the 
French  occupation  of  Mexico  is  the  one  case,  up  to  that 
time,  in  which  it  was  necessary  for  this  doctrine  to  be  main- 
tained by  unequivocal  threats  of  war. 

Whenever  it  was  thought  necessary  to  state  the  American 
position  on  this  subject  Congress  passed  resolutions  similar 
to  this  one  : 

"And  whereas,  the  doctrines  and  policy  proclaimed  by 
President  Monroe  have  since  been  repeatedly  asserted  by  the 
United  States  by  executive  declaration  and  action  upon  occa- 
sions and  exigencies  similar  to  the  particular  occasion 
and  exigency  which  caused  them  first  to  be  announced,  and 
have  been  ever  since  their  promulgation,  and  now  are  the 
rightful  policy  of  the  United  States.  Therefore 

12 


"Be  it  resolved,  that  the  United  States  of  America  reaffirms 
and  confirms  the  doctrine  and  principles  promulgated  by 
President  Monroe  in  his  message  of  December  2,  1823  and 
declares  that  it  will  assert  and  maintain  the  doctrine  and 
those  principles,  and  will  regard  any  infringement  thereof 
and  particularly  any  attempt  by  any  European  power  to 
take  or  acquire  any  new  or  additional  territory  on  the 
American  continent,  or  any  island  adjacent  thereto,  or  any 
right  or  sovereignty  or  dominion  in  the  same,  in  any  case 
or  instance  as  to  which  the  United  States  shall  deem  such 
attempt  to  be  dangerous  to  its  peace  or  safety,  by  or  through, 
force,  purchase,  cession,  occupation,  pledge,  colonization, 
protectorate  or  by  control  of  the  easement  in  any  canal  or 
any  other  means  of  transit  across  the  American  isthmus, 
whether  under  unfounded  pretension  of  right  in  cases  of 
alleged  boundary  disputes,  or  under  any  other  unfounded 
pretensions  as  the  manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disposition 
toward  the  United  States  and  as  an  interposition  which  it 
would  be  impossible,  in  any  form,  for  the  United  States  to 
regard  with  indifference.'5 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  had  it  not  been  for  Eussia, 
both  England  and  France  would  have  intervened  in  the 
American  civil  war.  When  a  citizen  of  the  United  States 
referred  to  the  cordiality  of  Eussia  and  this  country  and 
spoke  to  the  Eussian  Crown  Prince  about  the  interest  that 
his  Government  had  taken  in  American  affairs  especially  at 
that  time,  he  said : 

"Oh,  yes  f my  father  told  me  all  about  our  Eussian  fleets 
in  the  harbors  of  New  York  and  San  Francisco  to  keep  off 
your  foreign  enemies."  The  Eussian  naval  commanders  in 
American  waters  had  sealed  instructions  from  their  Govern- 
ment to  be  opened  only  in  case  of  war  being  declared  between 
the  United  States  and  a  European  power.  They  were,  of 
course,  to  assist  the  north,  as  is  well  known. 

It  was  not  definitely  known  in  this  country  until  the  recent 
correspondence  was  published  that  the  British  Ministers  in 

13 


our  civil  war  period  sought  every  opportunity  to  destroy  the 
American  Union.  Even  before  the  Trent  affair  Lord  Eussell 
wrote  on  17  October,  1861  to  Lord  Palmerston  concerning 
the  opinion  of  the  French  Minister  at  Washington  that  the 
blockade  should  be  raised  by  outside  force.  The  whole  scheme 
of  finally  destroying  the  Union  by  European  intervention  was 
thus  mapped  out  by  the  British  Foreign  Ministers  as  early 
as  September  17,  1862.  Palmerston  answered  that  he 
thought  BusselFs  plans  "excellent."  He  objected  to  asking 
Eussia  to  join  in  "the  offer  of  mediation,  because  she  would 
be  favorable  to  the  north." 

Secretary  of  State  Seward  remonstrated  with  Great 
Britain  as  to  her  premeditated  violations  of  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  in  the  following  language:  "The  Government  of 
the  United  States  will  maintain  and  insist  with  all  the 
decision  and  energy  which  are  compatible  with  our  existing 
neutrality,  that  the  Eepublican  system  which  is  accepted  by 
any  one  of  those  South  American  States  shall  not  wantonly 
be  assailed,  and  that  it  shall  not  be  subverted  as  an  end  of 
a  lawful  war  by  European  powers.  But  beyond  this  position, 
the  United  States  Government  will  not  go  nor  will  it  con- 
sider itself  hereby  bound  to  take  part  in  wars  in  which  a 
South  American  Eepublic  may  enter  with  a  European 
sovereign,  when  the  object  of  the  latter  is  not  the  establish- 
ment in  place  of  a  subverted  republic,  of  a  monarchy  under 
a  European  Prince." 

The  pretext  that  Napoleon  found  to  invade  Mexico  was 
certain  debts  alleged  to  be  due  citizens  of  his  country. 

England  and  Spain  had  claims  also.  A  joint  expedition 
was  arranged  to  menace  Mexico.  Napoleon  determined  to 
make  this  expedition  a  means  of  acquiring  a  foothold  which 
should  lead  to  the  establishment  of  a  Latin  monarchy  in  the 
western  hemisphere.  The  scheme  was  a  revival  in  another 
form  of  the  French  dream  of  a  great  American  Empire.  The 
joint  expedition  consisted  of  81  vessels,  carrying  1,611  guns 
and  27,911  sailors  and  troops.  It  reached  Vera  Cruz  in 

14 


December  1861.  In  the  early  part  of  1862  England  and  Spain 
being  remonstrated  with  by  the  United  States  and  not  wish- 
ing to  act  as  a  tail  to  the  French  political  kite,  arranged 
with  Mexico  to  withdraw  their  forces  which  was  done  in  the 
following  April. 

Left  alone  France  reinforced  her  army  notwithstanding 
the  protest  of  the  United  States  and  placed  it  under  the 
command  of  General  Forey.  The  undertaking  seemed  easy 
to  Napoleon.  His  instructions  to  Forey  were  simply  to 
"do  it  quickly  and  well/'  If  his  project  had  succeeded  it 
certainly  would  have  been  the  greatest  of  his  reign.  But 
Mexico  resisted  heroically  for  more  than  four  years. 

This  expedition  cost  France  altogether  about  forty  million 
dollars.  Being  intimidated  by  the  French  forces,  Mexico 
was  made  to  ratify  the  election  of  Maximilian  as  hereditary 
emperor.  With  the  moral  assistance  of  the  United  States 
the  Mexican  war  party  constantly  opposed  the  Maximilian 
empire. 

In  1866  its  civil  war  being  ended  the  American  Govern- 
ment demanded  the  withdrawal  of  the  French  troops  from 
Mexico,  as  stated  by  President  Johnson  in  his  message  to 
Congress. 

PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S  ANNUAL  MESSAGE,  DECEMBER,  1866. 

"In  the  month  of  April  last,  as  Congress  is  aware,  a 
friendly  arrangement  was  made  between  the  Emperor  of 
France  and  the  President  of  the  United  States  for  the  with- 
drawal from  Mexico  of  the  French  military  forces.  This 
withdrawal  was  to  be  effected  in  three  detachments,  the  first 
of  which  it  was  understood,  would  leave  Mexico  in  November, 
now  past,  the  second  in  March  next,  and  the  third  and  last 
in  November,  1867. 

"Immediately  upon  the  completion  of  the  evacuation,  the 
French  Government  was  to  assume  the  same  attitude  of  non- 
intervention in  regard  to  Mexico  as  is  held  by  the  Govern- 

15 


ment  of  the  United  States.  Eepeated  assurances  have  been 
given  by  the  Emperor  since  that  agreement  that  he  would 
complete  the  promised  evacuation  within  the  period  men- 
tioned or  sooner. 

"It  was  reasonably  expected  that  the  proceedings  thus  con- 
templated would  produce  a  crisis  of  great  political  interest 
in  the  Eepublic  of  Mexico.  The  newly  appointed  minister 
of  the  United  States,  Mr.  Campbell,  was  therefore  sent  for- 
ward on  the  9th  day  of  November  last  to  assume  his  proper 
functions  as  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States 
to  that  country.  It  was  also  thought  expedient  that  he 
should  be  attended  in  the  vicinity  of  Mexico  by  the  Lieuten- 
ant-General of  the  army  of  the  United  States  with  the 
view  of  obtaining  such  information  as  might  be  important 
to  determine  the  course  to  be  pursued  by  the  United  States 
in  re-establishing  and  maintaining  necessary  and  proper 
intercourse  with  the  Eepublic  of  Mexico.  Deeply  interested 
in  the  cause  of  liberty  and  humanity,  it  seemed  an  obvious 
duty  on  our  part  to  exercise  whatever  influence  we  possessed 
for  the  restoration  and  permanent  establishment  in  that 
country  of  a  domestic  and  Eepublican  form  of  Government. 

"Such  was  the  condition  of  our  affairs  in  regard  to  Mexico, 
when,  on  the  22d  day  of  November  last,  official  information 
was  received  from  Paris  that  the  Emperor  of  France  had 
some  time  before  decided  not  to  withdraw  a  detachment  of 
his  forces  in  the  month  of  November  past,  according  to  en- 
gagement, but  that  this  decision  was  made  with  the  purpose 
of  withdrawing  the  whole  of  those  forces  in  the  ensuing 
spring.  Of  this  determination  however,  the  United  States 
had  not  received  any  notice  or  intimation,  and  so  soon  as 
the  information  was  received  by  the  Government,  care  was 
taken  to  make  known  its  dissent  to  the  Emperor  of  France. 

"I  cannot  forego  the  hope  that  France  will  consider  the 
subject  and  adopt  some  resolution  in  regard  to  the  evacuation 
of  Mexico  which  will  conform  as  nearly  as  practicable  with 
the  existing  engagement  and  thus  meet  the  just  expectations 

16 


of  the  United  States.  It  is  believed  that  with  the  evacuation 
of  Mexico  by  the  expeditionary  forces  no  subject  for  serious 
differences  between  France  and  the  United  States  would 
remain.  The  expressions  of  the  Emperor  and  people  of 
France  warrant  a  hope  that  the  traditionary  friendship  be- 
tween the  two  countries  might  in  that  case  be  renewed  and 
permanently  restored." 

Thus  diplomatically  did  the  President  state  the  situation. 
Johnson's  remonstrance  to  Napoleon  backed  up  by  General 
Sheridan's  army  on  the  Eio  Grande,  brought  Napoleon  to  a 
realization  of  the  situation.  France,  of  course,  seeing  that 
further  resistance  to  the  United  States  would  result  in  serious 
complications,  acquiesced,  and  the  Mexican  Republic  rose  on 
the  ashes  of  the  Maximilian  Empire. 

The  purchase  of  Russian- America  (Alaska)  for  seven  mil- 
lion and  two  hundred  thousand  dollars  from  Russia  in  1867 
by  the  United  States  was  another  step  towards  "America  for 
the  Americans"  and  another  result  of  the  principles  under- 
lying the  Monroe  Doctrine  as  is  also  the  sale  of  the  Danish 
West  Indies  to  the  American  Government. 

The  Pan-American  Congress  at  Washington  was  an  out- 
come of  the  same  sentiment.  Closer  fraternal  feeling  was 
advocated  between  all  American  republics.  A  court  of  arbi- 
tration to  settle  all  disputes  and  a  railroad  connecting  the 
different  countries  was  projected. 

Now  that  Mexico  and  certain  South  American  countries 
have  built  quite  a  number  of  railroads,  some  of  considerable 
length,  it  is  not  believed  to  be  such  a  prodigious  task  to 
connect  the  United  States  with  the  Central  and  South  Ameri- 
can countries  as  was  first  supposed.  This  fact,  together  with 
the  building  of  the  Panama  canal,,  serves  to  bind  more 
firmly  the  great  American  republic  with  her  southern  sis- 
ters both  commercially  and  politically.  It  makes  the  Pan- 
American  sentiment  stronger  than  ever,  and  will  continue 
to  do  so  as  time  proves  their  interests  to  be  more  and  more 
mutual.  Commercial,  as  well  as  political,  considerations  will 

17 


cause  the  United  States  to  safeguard  and  protect  her  weaker 
neighbors  in  every  way  possible. 

THE  VENEZUELAN-  CONTROVERSY. 

The  boundary  dispute  between  Venezuela  and  England 
was  of  long  standing.  It  was  only  after  the  insistence  on 
the  part  of  the  United  States  by  President  Cleveland  that 
England  consented  to  arbitrate,  claiming  at  first  that  the 
matter  was  not  a  subject  for  arbitration.  The  British  Prime 
Minister  Lord  Salisbury  contended  that  it  was  not  a  case 
where  the  Monroe  Doctrine  applied.  The  United  States,  of 
course,  insisted  that  it  did  apply. 

On  the  20th  July  1895  Secretary  of  State  Olney  sent  a 
note  to  Ambassador  Bayard  at  London  concerning  the 
threatening  state  of  affairs  between  Great  Britain  and  Vene- 
zuela. Beginning  at  the  very  inception  of  the  dispute  which 
had  assumed  a  very  grave  aspect  Mr.  Oiney  carried  his  argu- 
ment of  the  American  claim  for  arbitration  based  on  the 
Monroe  Doctrine,  down  to  that  time  and  gave  emphasis  to 
his  statements  by  quoting  the  sentiments  of  President  Mon- 
roe in  full,  and  notes  that  "its  pronouncement  by  Monroe's 
administration  at  that  particular  time  was  unquestionably 
due  to  the  inspiration  of  Great  Britain  who  at  once  gave  to 
it  an  open  and  unqualified  adhesion,  which  has  never  been 
withdrawn."  Secretary  Olney  regarded  the  doctrine  as  the 
embodiment  and  expression  of  opposition  between  Europe 
and  America.  He  said  that,  Europe  being  monarchical  and 
America  republican,  the  former  must  necessarily  be  to 
some  extent  hostile  to  democracy,  and  free  institutions  of 
which  the  latter  is  the  exponent.  He  regarded  self-govern- 
ment as  the  issue,  continuing:  "The  people  of  the  United 
States  have  a  vital  interest  in  the  cause  of  popular  self- 
government.  They  believe  it  to  be  for  the  healing  of  all 
nations  and  that  civilization  must  either  advance  or  retro- 
grade accordingly  as  its  supremacy  is  extended  or  curtailed." 

18 


Mr.  Olney  gives  in  his  note  a  firm  indorsement  to  the 
principle  enunciated  by  Monroe  and  defines  Great  Britain's 
position  in  this  frank  and  unambiguous  manner.  She  (Great 
Britain)  says  to  Venezuela:  "You  can  get  none  of  the  de- 
batable land  by  force  because  you  are  not  strong  enough ;  you 
can  get  none  by  treaty,  because  I  will  not  agree,  and  you 
can  take  your  chance  of  getting  a  portion  by  arbitration, 
only  if  you  first  agree  to  abandon  to  me  such  portions  as  I 
may  designate." 

Mr.  Olney  says  it  is  not  perceived  how  such  an  attitude 
can  be  defended  nor  how  it  is  reconcilable  with  that  love 
of  justice  and  fair  play  so  eminently  characteristic  of  the 
English  race,  and  holds  that  if  such  a  position  be  adhered 
to,  it  should  be  regarded  as  amounting  in  substance  to  an 
invasion  and  conquest  of  Venezuelan  territory.  In  conclu- 
sion Mr.  Olney  says  that  in  these  circumstances  the  duty  of 
the  President  appears  to  him  unmistakable  and  imperative. 
To  ignore  Great  Britain's  assertion  of  title  and  her  refusal 
to  have  that  title  investigated,  and  not  to  protest  and  give 
warnings  against  the  substantial  appropriation  by  Great 
Britain  of  the  territory  for  her  own  use,  would  be  to  ignore  an 
established  policy,  with  which  the  honor  and  welfare  of  this 
country  are  closely  identified.  He  therefore  instructed  Mr. 
Bayard  to  lay  the  views  given  before  Lord  Salisbury  and  said : 
"They  (the  views)  call  for  a  definite  decision  on  the  point 
whether  Great  Britain  will  consent  or  will  decline  to  submit 
the  Venezuelan  boundary  question  in  its  entirety  to  impartial 
arbitration." 

Expressing  the  President's  hope  that  the  conclusion  will 
be  on  the  side  of  arbitration,  Mr.  Olney  concludes  with  the 
pointed  statement  that  if  the  President  "Is  to  be  disappointed 
in  that  hope  however — a  result  not  to  be  anticipated  and  in 
his  judgment  calculated  to  greatly  embarrass  the  future  re- 
lations between  this  country  and  Great  Britain — it  is  his 
wish  to  be  made  acquainted. with  the  fact  at  such  early  date 

19 


as  will  enable  him  to  lay  the  whole  subject  before  congress 
in  his  next  annual  message." 

Lord  Salisbury's  reply  is  addressed  to  Sir  Julian  Paunce- 
fote,  the  British  Ambassador  at  Washington  under  date  of 
November  26,  1895.  This  dealt  only  with  the  application  of 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  in  the  case  at  issue,  and  was  followed 
on  the  same  day  by  another  note  discussing  the  boundary 
dispute  per  se.  At  the  outset  Lord  Salisbury  states  so  far 
as  he  is  aware  the  Monroe  Doctrine  has  never  been  before 
advanced  on  behalf  of  the  United  States  in  any  written  com- 
munication addressed  to  the  Government  of  another  nation. 
He  gives  what  he  believes  is  the  British  interpretation  of  the 
doctrine,  and  maintains  that  the  dangers  which  were  appre- 
hended by  President  Monroe  have  no  relation  to  the  state 
of  things  in  which  we  live  at  the  present  day,  and  adds  with 
thinly  covered  irony  that  "it  is  intelligible  that  Mr.  Olney 
should  invoke  in  the  defense  of  views  on  which  he  is  now 
insisting,  an  authority  (Monroe)  which  enjoys  so  high  a 
popularity  with  his  own  fellow-countrymen/' 

"The  dispute  between  Great  Britain  and  Venezuela  is  a 
controversy  with  which/'  said  Lord  Salisbury,  "the  United 
States  have  no  apparent  political  concern/' 

Continuing  in  short,  pithy  sentences  he  says  "it  is  difficult, 
indeed,  to  see  how  the  question  in  controversy  can  materially 
affect  any  state  or  community  outside  those  primarily  inter- 
ested; that  the  disputed  frontier  of  Venezuela  has  nothing 
to  do  with  any  of  the  questions  dealt  with  by  President 
Monroe;  that  it  is  not  a  question  of  colonization  by  any 
European  power  of  any  portion  of  America,  nor  of  the  imposi- 
tion upon  the  communities  of  South  America  of  any  system 
of  government  devised  in  Europe." 

"It  is,"  he  says,  "simply  the  determination  of  the  frontier 
of  a  British  possession  which  belonged  to  the  throne  of  Eng- 
land long  before  the  republic  of  Venezuela  came  into  exist- 
ence." 

As  he  proceeds  in  the  discussion  the  language  of  Lord 

20 


Salisbury  becomes  tart.  He  argues  in  theory  that  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  in  itself  is  sound,  but  disclaims  any  intention  of 
being  understood  as  expressing  any  acceptance  of  it  on  the 
part  of  her  Majesty's  Government.  He  quotes  Mr.  Olney 
as  saying:  "That  distance,,  three  thousand  miles  of  inter- 
vening ocean  make  any  political  union  between  a  European 
and  American  State  unnatural  and  inexpedient  will  hardly 
be  denied";  and  adds  that  "the  meaning  of  these  words  is 
that  the  union  between  Great  Britain  and  Canada,  Jamaica 
and  Trinidad;  between  Great  Britain  and  British  Honduras 
or  British  Guiana  are  inexpedient  and  unnatural." 

"President  Monroe,"  said  his  lordship,  "disclaims  any  such 
inference  from  his  doctrine,  but  in  this  as  in  other  respects 
Mr.  Olney  develops  it."  "He  lays  down,"  said  Lord  Salis* 
bury,  "that  the  inexpedient  and  unnatural  character  of  the 
Union  between  a  European  and  an  American  State  is  so  obvi- 
ous that  it  will  hardly  be  denied.  Her  Majesty's  Government 
are  prepared  emphatically  to  deny  it  on  behalf  of  both  the 
British  and  American  people,  who  are  subject  to  her  crown. 
They  maintain  that  the  union  between  Great  Britain  and 
her  territories  in  the  western  hemisphere  is  both  natural  and 
expedient.  But  they  are  not  prepared  to  admit  that  the 
recognition  of  that  expediency  is  clothed  with  the  sanction 
which  belongs  to  the  adoption  of  international  law.  They 
are  not  prepared  to  admit  that  the  interests  of  the  United 
States  are  necessarily  concerned  in  every  frontier  dispute 
which  may  arise  between  any  two  of  the  states  who  possess 
dominion  in  the  western  hemisphere;  and  still  less  can  they 
accept  the  doctrine  that  the  United  States  are  entitled  to 
claim  that  the  process  of  arbitration  shall  be  applied  to  any 
demand  for  the  surrender  of  territory  which  one  of  those 
states  may  make  against  another." 

Lord  Salisbury  concludes  with  the  statement  that  Her 
Majesty's  Government  have  not  surrendered  the  hope  that 
the  controversy  between  themselves  and  Venezuela  will  be 
adjusted  by  reasonable  arrangements  at  an  early  c" 

21 


The  second  note  of  November  26  is  wholly  devoted  to  a 
discussion  of  the  boundary  dispute,  exclusive  of  its  relation 
to  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  This  dispatch  however  sounds  the 
keynote  of  Great  Britain's  position  with  reference  to  Mr. 
Olney's  representations.  Lord  Salisbury  states  that  Great 
Britain  has  repeatedly  expressed  its  readiness  to  submit  to 
arbitration  the  conflicting  claims  of  Great  Britain  to  terri- 
tory of  great  mineral  values,  and  follows  this  statement  with 
these  important  words:  "But  they  (the  British  Govern- 
ment) cannot  consent  to  entertain  or  to  submit  to  the  arbi- 
tration of  another  power  or  a  foreign  jurist,  however  emi- 
nent, claims  based  on  extravagant  pretensions  of  Spanish 
officials  in  the  last  century  and  involving  the  transfer  of 
large  numbers  of  British  subjects,  who  have  for  many  years 
enjoyed  the  settled  rule  of  the  British  Colony,  to  a  nation 
of  different  race  and  language,  whose  political  system  is  sub- 
ject to  frequent  disturbance,  and  whose  institutions  as  yet 
too  often  afford  very  inadequate  protection  to  life  and  prop- 
erty. No  issue  of  this  description  has  ever  been  involved  in 
the  questions  which  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States 
have  consented  to  submit  to  arbitration  and  Her  Majesty's 
Government  are  convinced  that  in  similar  circumstances  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  would  be  equally  firm  in 
declining  to  entertain  proposals  of  such  a  nature." 

CLEVELAND'S  MESSAGE 

President  Cleveland  sent  the  following  vigorous  message 
to  Congress  on  the  subject: 

"To  the  Congress:  In  my  annual  message  addressed  to 
Congress  on  the  3d  inst.  I  called  attention  to  the  pending 
boundary  controversy  between  Great  Britain  and  the  re- 
public of  Venezuela,  and  recited  the  substance  of  a  repre- 
sentation made  by  this  Government  to  Her  Britannic  Ma- 
jesty's Government,  suggesting  reasons  why  such  dispute 
should  be  submitted  to  arbitration  for  settlement  and  inquir- 
ing whether  it  would  be  so  submitted. 

22 


"The  answer  of  the  British  Government,  which  was  then 
awaited,  has  since  been  received  and  together  with  the  dis- 
patch to  which  it  is  a  reply,  is  hereto  appended. 

"Such  reply  is  embodied  in  two  communications  addressed 
by  the  British  Prime  Minister  to  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote 
the  British  Ambassador  at  this  Capital.  It  will  be  seen 
that  one  of  these  communications  is  devoted  exclusively  to 
observations  upon  the  Monroe  Doctrine  and  claims  that  in 
the  present  instance  new  and  strange  extension  and  develop- 
ment of  this  doctrine  are  insisted  on  by  the  United  States, 
that  the  reasons  justifying  an  appeal  to  the  doctrine  enunci- 
ated by  President  Monroe  are  generally  inapplicable  to  the 
state  of  things  in  which  we  live  at  the  present  day  and  espe- 
cially inapplicable  to  a  controversy  involving  the  boundary 
line  between  Great  Britain  and  Venezuela. 

"Without  attempting  an  extended  argument  in  reply  to 
these  positions  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  suggest  that  the  doc- 
trine upon  which  we  stand  is  strong  and  sound,  because  its  en- 
forcement is  important  to  our  peace  and  safety  as  a  nation, 
and  is  essential  to  the  integrity  of  our  free  institutions  and 
the  tranquil  maintenance  of  our  distinctive  form  of  Govern- 
ment. It  was  intended  to  apply  to  every  stage  in  our  national 
life  and  cannot  become  obsolete  while  our  republic  endures. 
If  the  balance  of  power  is  justly  a  cause  for  jealous  anxiety 
among  the  Governments  of  the  old  world  and  a  subject  for 
our  absolute  non-interference,  none  the  less  is  an  observance 
of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  of  vital  concern  to  our  people  and 
their  Government. 

"Assuming  therefore  that  we  may  probably  insist  upon  this 
doctrine  without  regard  to  'the  state  of  things  in  which  we 
live/  or  any  changed  condition  here  or  elsewhere,  it  is  not 
apparent  why  its  application  may  not  be  invoked  in  the 
present  controversy. 

"If  a  European  power,  by  extension  of  its  boundaries  takes 
possession  of  the  territory  of  one  of  our  neighboring  repub- 
lics against  its  will  and  in  derogation  of  its  rights,  it  is 

23 


difficult  to  see  why  to  that  extent,  such  European  power  does 
not  thereby  attempt  to  extend  its  system  of  Government  to 
that  portion  of  this  continent  which  is  thus  taken.  This  is  the 
precise  action  which  President  Monroe  declared  to  be 
'dangerous  to  our  peace  and  safety/  and  it  can  make  no 
difference  whether  the  European  system  is  extended  by  an 
absence  of  frontier  or  otherwise. 

"It  is  also  suggested  in  the  British  reply  'that  we  should 
not  seek  to  apply  the  Monroe  Doctrine  to  the  pending  dis- 
pute because  it  does  not  embody  any  principle  of  inter- 
national law,  which  is  founded  on  the  general  consent  of 
nations'  and  that  'no  statesman  however  eminent,  and  no 
nation  however  powerful  are  competent  to  insert  into  the 
code  of  international  law  a  novel  principle  which  was  never 
recognized  before,  and  which  has  not  since  been  accepted 
by  the  Government  of  any  other  country/ 

"Practically  the  principle  for  which  we  contend  has  peculiar, 
if  not  exclusive,  relation  to  the  United  States.  It  may  not 
have  been  admitted  in  so  many  words  to  the  code  of  inter- 
national law,  but  since  in  international  counsels  every  nation 
is  entitled  to  the  rights  belonging  to  it,  if  the  enforcement 
of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  something  we  may  justly  claim, 
it  has  its  place  in  the  code  of  international  law  as  certainly 
and  as  securely  as  if  it  were  specifically  mentioned;  and  when 
the  United  States  is  a  suitor  before  the  high  tribunal  that 
administers  international  law  the  question  to  be  determined 
is  whether  or  not  we  present  claims  which  the  justice  of  that 
code  of  law  can  find  to  be  right  and  valid. 

"The  Monroe  Doctrine  finds  its  recognition  in  those  prin- 
ciples of  international  law  which  are  based  upon  the  theory 
that  every  nation  will  have  its  rights  protected  and  its  just 
claims  enforced. 

"Of  course  this  Government  is  entirely  confident  that  under 
the  sanction  of  this  doctrine  we  have  clear  rights  and  un- 
doubted claims.  Nor  is  this  ignored  in  the  British  reply. 
The  Prime  Minister,  while  not  admitting  that  the  Monroe 

24 


Doctrine  is  applicable  to  present  conditions  states  'in  de- 
claring that  the  United  States  would  resist  any  such  enter- 
prise if  it  was  contemplated.,  President  Monroe  adopted  a 
policy  which  received  the  entire  sympathy  of  the  English 
Government  of  that  date/ 

"He  further  declares,  'though  the  language  of  President 
Monroe  is  directed  to  the  attainment  of  objects  which  most 
Englishmen  would  agree  to  be  statutory,  it  is  impossible  to 
admit,  that  they  have  been  inscribed  by  any  adequate 
authority  in  the  code  of  international  law/ 

"Again  he  says  'They  (her  Majesty's  Government)  fully 
concur  with  the  view  which  President  Monroe  apparently 
entertained,  that  any  disturbance  of  existing  territory  dis- 
tribution in  that  hemisphere  by  any  fresh  acquisitions  on  the 
part  of  any  European  state  would  be  a  highly  inexpedient 
charge.' 

"In  the  belief  that  the  doctrine  for  which  we  contend  was 
clear  and  definite,  that  it  was  founded  on  substantial  con- 
siderations and  involved  our  safety  and  welfare,  that  it  was 
fully  applicable  to  our  present  condition  and  to  the  state  of 
the  world's  progress,  and  that  it  was  directly  related  to  the 
pending  controversy,  and  without  any  convictions  as  to  the 
final  merits  of  the  dispute,  but  anxious  to  learn  in  a  satis- 
factory and  conclusive  manner  whether  Great  Britain  sought 
under  a  claim  of  boundary  to  extend  her  possessions  on  this 
continent,  without  right,  or  whether  she  merely  sought  pos- 
session of  territory  fairly  included  within  her  lines  of  owner- 
ship, this  Government  proposed  to  the  Government  of  Great 
Britain  a  resort  to  arbitration  as  a  proper  means  of  settling 
the  question,  to  the  end  that  a  vexatious  boundary  dispute 
between  the  two  contestants  might  be  determined  and  our 
exact  standing  and  relation  in  respect  to  the  controversy 
might  be  made  clear.  It  will  be  seen  from  the  correspondence 
herewith  submitted  that  this  proposition  has  been  declined 
by  the  British  Government  upon  grounds  which  in  the  cir- 
cumstances seem  to  me  to  be  far  from  satisfactory.  It  is 

25 


deeply  disappointing  that  such  an  appeal,  actuated  by  the 
most  friendly  feelings  toward  both  nations  directly  con- 
cerned,, addressed  to  the  sense  of  justice  and  to  the  mag- 
nanimity of  one  of  the  great  powers  of  the  world,  and  touch- 
ing its  relations  to  one  comparatively  weak  and  small,  should 
have  produced  no  better  results. 

"The  course  to  be  pursued  by  this  Government  in  view  of 
the  present  condition  does  not  appear  to  admit  of  serious 
doubt.  Having  labored  faithfully  for  many  years  to  induce 
Great  Britain  to  submit  this  dispute  to  impartial  arbitration 
and  having  been  now  finally  apprised  of  her  refusal  to  do  so, 
nothing  remains  but  to  accept  the  situation,  to  recognize  its 
plain  requirements  and  deal  with  it  accordingly.  Great 
Britain's  present  proposition  has  never  thus  far  been  regarded 
as  admissible  by  Venezuela,  though  any  adjustment  of  the 
boundaries  which  that  country  may  deem  for  her  advantage 
and  may  enter  into  of  her  own  free  will  cannot,  of  course,  be 
objected  to  by  the  United  States. 

"Assuming  that  the  attitude  of  Venezuela,  will  remain  un- 
changed, the  dispute  has  reached  such  a  stage  as  to  make  it 
now  incumbent  upon  the  United  States  to  take  measures  to 
determine  with  sufficient  certainty  for  its  justification  what 
is  the  true  divisional  line  between  the  republic  of  Venezuela 
and  British  Guiana. 

"The  inquiry  to  that  end  should,  of  course,  be  conducted 
carefully  and  judiciously,  and  due  weight  should  be  given 
to  all  available  evidence,  records  and  facts  in  support  of  the 
claims  of  both  parties. 

"In  order  that  such  examinations  should  be  prosecuted  in  a 
thorough  and  satisfactory  manner,  I  suggest  that  the  Con- 
gress make  an  adequate  appropriation  for  the  expenses  of  a 
commission,  to  be  appointed  by  the  executive,  who  shall  make 
the  necessary  investigation  and  report  upon  the  matter  with 
the  least  possible  delay.  When  such  report  is  made  and 
accepted  it  will,  in  my  opinion,  be  the  duty  of  the  United 
States  to  resist  by  every  means  in  its  power,  as  a  willful 


aggression  upon  its  rights  and  interests,  the  appropriation 
by  Great  Britain  of  any  lands  or  the  exercise  of  governmental 
jurisdiction  over  any  territory  which  after  investigation,  we 
have  determined  of  right  belong  to  Venezuela. 

"In  making  these  recommendations  I  am  fully  alive  to  the 
responsibility  incurred,  and  keenly  realize  all  the  conse- 
quences that  may  follow.  I  am,  nevertheless,  firm  in  my 
conviction  that  while  it  is  a  grievous  thing  to  contemplate 
the  two  great  English  speaking  people  of  the  world  as  being 
otherwise  than  friendly  competitors  in  the  onward  march  of 
civilization  and  strenuous  and  worthy  rivals  in  all  the  arts  of 
peace;  there  is  no  calamity  which  a  great  nation  can  invite 
which  equals  that  which  follows  a  supine  submission  to  wrong 
and  injustice  and  the  consequent  loss  of  national  self  respect 
and  honor  beneath  which  are  shielded  and  defended  a  people's 
safety  and  greatness. 

"GROVER  CLEVELAND. 
"Executive  Mansion,  December  11,  1895." 


It  has  been  claimed  in  some  quarters  that  possible  Eussian 
and  German  complications  were  instrumental  in  forcing 
England  to  arbitrate  the  question.  Be  that  as  it  may,  suffice 
it  to  know  that  she  did  yield,  although  only  after  considerable 
correspondence.  None  the  less  is  the  credit  due  Cleveland's 
administration.  It  later  developed  that  German  menaces 
were  the  prime  cause  of  England's  sudden  acquiescence. 

Secretary  Frelinghuysen,  correcting  an  erroneous  impres- 
sion that  seemed  to  prevail  in  certain  countries  that  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  placed  the  United  States  in  the  position 
of  a  bully,  stated:  "It  is  not  the  inhospitable  principle  it 
is  sometimes  charged  with  being,  and  which  asserts  that 
European  nations  shall  not  retain  dominion  on  this  hemi- 
sphere and  that  none  but  republican  governments  shall  be 

27 


tolerated  here;  for  we  know  that  a  large  part  of  the  North 
American  continent  is  under  the  dominion  of  her  majesty's 
government,,  and  that  the  United  States  were  in  the  past  the 
first  to  recognize  the  imperial  authority  in  Brazil  of  Em- 
peror Dom  Pedro,  and  in  Mexico  of  Iturbide." 

On  January  31,  1896  Lord  Salisbury  delivered  a  speech 
in  London  in  the  course  of  which  he  rebutted  the  statement 
made  by  John  Morley  to  the  electors  at  Arbroath,  Scotland, 
concerning  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  Mr.  Morley  claimed  that 
Lord  Salisbury  had  blundered  in  seeming  to  question  this 
doctrine.  Salisbury  replied  that  although  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine formed  no  part  of  international  law,  his  dispatch  to 
Secretary  of  State,  Olney,  supported  it  as  a  rule  of  policy 
as  strongly  and  distinctly  as  possible  but  in  the  form  in 
which  President  Monroe  himself  understood  it. 

Another  British  official,  Et.  Hon.  Arthur  Balfour,  stated 
that  Americans  need  have  no  fear  of  England  opposing  the 
Monroe  Doctrine.  He  dilated  upon  it,  construing  it  to  mean 
that  the  American  continent  must  not  be  regarded  as  a  field 
for  European  colonization  and  that  European  nations  were 
not  entitled  to  interfere  in  the  domestic  affairs  of  the  new 
world.  He  said  that  the  United  States  and  England  con- 
curred in  this  construction. 

He  also  said  he  was  not  aware  that  there  had  been  any 
change  of  mind,  and  did  not  believe  it  would  be  possible  to 
find  an  individual  in  his  country  who  was  desirous  of  what 
is  known  as  a  forward  policy  in  America,  Great  Britain 
was  content  and  had  always  been  content,  to  do  the  best  for 
the  colonies  she  possessed  there  and  did  not  wish  to  interfere 
with  other  states  or  acquire  more  territory.  He  believed  that 
if  the  Venezuelan  Government  had  requested  British  protec- 
tion the  honor  would  have  been  declined  by  every  statesman 
nameable.  He  referred  respectively  to  the  long  duration  of 
the  boundary  dispute,  to  Lord  Salisbury's  dispatch,  to  the 
progress  of  compiling  documents  relating  to  the  matter  here 
and  to  the  appointment  of  a  United  States  commission  to 


determine  the  boundary,  and  added  that  it  would  be  hard  in- 
deed if  the  common  sense  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  was  un- 
able to  settle  any  dispute  without  war.  Beferring  to  the 
settlement  of  British  claims  against  Venezuela,,  the  Duke  of 
Devonshire,  Lord  President  of  the  Council,  said:  "Great 
Britain  accepted  the  Monroe  Doctrine  unreservedly,  but  to 
have  abstained  from  enforcing  claims  which  she  believed  to 
be  just  and  essential  to  her  honor  would  be  to  make  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  an  object  of  dislike  for  every  civilized 
power." 

The  German  Prime  Minister,  Prince  Bismarck,  regarded 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  as  impertinence.  Without  publicly 
accepting  it  as  a  part  of  international  law,  he,  however,  never 
overtly  violated  it.  Early  in  1903  immediately  after  the 
reference  of  European  claims  on  Venezuela  to  the  Hague 
court  of  arbitration  the  then  German  Premier,  replying 
to  the  criticism  of  his  countrymen  for  consulting  the  United 
States  in  the  matter,  stated: 

"The  United  States'  participation  in  the  settlement  of 
the  Venezuela  controversy  is  regarded,  in  many  quarters, 
as  unfortunate,  and  as  hindering  the  result  of  the  negotia- 
tions. Certainly,  we  would  have  reached  the  object  desired 
more  rapidly  and  better,  if  we  had  been  let  alone  with 
Venezulea,  but  every  politician  who  knows  the  A  B  C's 
of  this  question,  knew  absolutely  in  advance  that  we  would 
not  be  let  alone. 

"Means  for  eliminating  the  United  States  from  the  con- 
troversy of  the  European  powers  with  Venezuela  there  were 
not  and  there  are  not  now.  The  patriotic  publicists,  who 
call  for  treating  this  question  according  to  the  Bismarckian 
method,  can  rest  assured  that  this  method  is  being  applied; 
carefully  nursing  the  friendship  of  the  United  States  is  a 
Bismarckian  tradition,  as  documents  testify.  In  his  rela- 
tions with  the  United  States  he  never  wore  'cuirassier's 
boots,'  as  is  now  so  often  demanded,  and  in  the  Samoan 


question  he  was  perhaps  less  exacting  than  his  present  suc- 
cessor." 

The  American  people,  ever  since  the  promulgation  of  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  in  1823,  have  insisted  on  a  strict  adher- 
ence to  that  policy  by  the  various  administrations.  An  un- 
broken record  for  consistency  to  its  principles  has  been 
preserved  by  every  act  of  the  United  States  government. 
Even  at  times  when,  to  one  unfamiliar  with  the  institutions 
of  this  country,  it  might  seem  that  the  doctrine  would  be 
abandoned,  or  at  any  rate  impaired ;  that  view  was  soon  found 
to  be  erroneous,  for  whenever  it  was  in  danger  of  being  at- 
tacked, fresh  resolutions  were  passed  as  soon  thereafter  as 
practicable,  announcing  a  firm  determination  to  defend  it 
at  all  hazards,  always  with  the  desired  effect. 
,  The  opinion  is  thoroughly  grounded  in  the  American 
mind  that  not  only  for  the  protection  of  its  own  country  but 
also  for  the  peace  and  safety  of  Central  and  South  America 
it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  foreign  political  influence  be 
excluded.  That  if  these  countries  were  open  to  European 
colonization  they  would  immediately  become  bones  of  con- 
.  tention,  followed  by  ceaseless  foreign  wars.  That  not  only 
should  they  be  free  from  European  influence  but  that  it  is 
essential  to  the  welfare  of  the  United  States  that  it  should 
1 1  be  surrounded  by  republican  governments  so  far  as  possible. 
V_rpjje  gma;Qer  republics  of  America  have  hitherto  feared  that 
\/  the  Monroe  Doctrine  was  only  a  ruse  to  control  and  eventu- 
ally to  seize  and  incorporate  them  into  the  United  States. 
Eminent  Europeans  were  fond  of  repeating  their  opinions 
that  this  is  the  ultimate  object  of  the  American  policy.  But 
the  Latin  republics  are  gradually,  although  none  the  less 
surely,  changing  their  views  on  this  subject;  Chili  has  al- 
ready notified  the  United  States  that  she  unreservedly  ac- 
cepts the  Monroe  Doctrine  both  in  letter  and  spirit;  Argen- 
tina and  other  South  American  governments  are  expected  to 
do  likewise. 

Although  the  anti- American  parties  of  Central  and  South 

30 


America  still  suspect  the  United  States  of  hostile  designs 
upon  them,  her  action  in  promptly  giving  freedom  and  in- 
dependence to  Cuba  has  convinced  many  of  them  of  the 
sincerity  of  her  promises.  The  influence  of  the  United 
States  constantly  increases  over  the  whole  western  hemi- 
sphere. 

While  the  Monroe  Doctrine  has  been  the  means  of  pre- 
serving the  other  American  republics  from  annihilation  by 
European^powers,  if  that  were  the  sole  object  of  this  doctrine 
it  would  not  be  worth  the  while  of  the  United  States  to  up- 
hold it.  For  those  governments  with  few  exceptions  are 
merely  dictatorships  under  the  guise  of  "republics."  Did 
not  the  American  government  realize  that  it  is  necessary  for 
her  own  safety  as  well  as  the  ultimate  development  of  republi- 
can institutions  elsewhere,  it  would  not  consider  "the  game 
worth  the  candle." 

Central  and  South  America  is  composed  principally  of 
Spanish-speaking  people  among  whom  the  Indian  admixture 
greatly  predominates;  Indians  and  those  partly  of  that  race 
constitute  about  three-quarters  of  the  total  population.  Only 
about  one-fourth  of  the  entire  population  consists  of  pure- 
blooded  Spanish  descendants,  merchants  and  others  from 
the  United  States,  England,  Germany  and  elsewhere.  They 
practically  constitute  the  educated  class.  This  small  portion 
is  the  propressjj£  element;  in  them  lies  the  only  hope  of 
ciyiliz'ationand  progress.  The  other  three-quarters  are  so 
densely  ignorant  and  illiterate  and  so  crushed  with  supersti- 
tion as  to  be  beyond  all  hope  for  many  years  to  come.  This 
ignorant  majority  offers  a  constant  temptation  to  renegades, 
desperadoes  and  the  like  for  political  aggrandizement.  The 
consequence  of  which  is  that,  with  a  very  few  exceptions, 
those  countries  are  in  a  chronic  state  of  revolution  and  up- 
heaval. The  disappointed  aspirant  seizes  the  first  oppor- 
tunity to  remove,  either  by  assassination  or  otherwise,  his 
opponent  for  the  "presidency";  after  seizing  the  office  he 
holds  it  until  displaced  by  some  other  revolutionist.  Diaz, 

31 


although  giving  Mexico  the  best  Government  in  her  history, 
was  virtual  dictator  for  about  a  score  of  years. 

Of  course  it  is  not  contended  that  there  are  no  honorable 
exceptions  to  the  political  adventurers  in  Central  and  South 
American  countries.  But  it  is  contended  that  three-fourths 
of  those  people  are  practically  incapable  of  self-government 
and  that  the  other  fourth  does  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  give 
those  countries  a  republican  form  of  government,,  with  pos- 
sibly three  exceptions.  Among  those  South  Americans  that 
are  worthy  to  be  honored  as  true  patriots  may  be  mentioned 
Simon  Bolivar,  the  hero  of  South  American  independence, 
the  Washington  of  Latin  America.  It  has  been  well  said  of 
him,  "he  expended  nine-tenths  of  a  splendid  patrimony  in 
the  service  of  his  country;  and  although  he  had  for  a  con- 
siderable period  unlimited  control  over  the  revenues  of  three 
countries — Bolivia  (named  after  him),  Colombia  and  Peru — 
he  died  without  a  shilling  of  the  public  money  in  his  pos- 
session. He  secured  the  independence  of  three  states  and 
called  forth  a  spirit  in  the  southern  portion  of  the  new 
world  which  can  never  be  extinguished.  He  purified  the  ad- 
ministration of  justice,  and  he  induced  other  countries  to 
recognize  the  independence  of  those  countries."  Their  so- 
called  elections  in  most  instances  are  decided  not  by  ballots, 
but  by  bullets. 

In  the  discussion  in  Congress  anent  the  Panama  canal 
treaty  Senator  Morgan  of  Alabama  brought  forward  facts  to 
prove  that  the  then  existing  Colombian  Government  could 
not  constitutionally  surrender  control  of  or  lease  ^he  right- 
of-way  across  the  isthmus;  the  administration  Senators  inti- 
mated that  there  was  never  a  de-jure  Government  there  and 
that  if  necessary  the  United  States  would  simply  take  pos- 
session by  force  under  color  of  the  title  received  from 
Colombia. 

Notwithstanding  the  gloomy  outlook  for  civilization  in 
those  turbulent  countries,  a  continuous  immigration  from 
Europe  and  the  United  States  together  with  those  great 


agencies  of  modern  advancement,  steam  and  electricity,  is 
slowly  but  none  the  less  surely  making  a  change  for  the 
better.  Superstition,  illiteracy  and  anarchy  will  have  to 
yield  to  progress. 

In  the  whole  existence  of  the  United  States,  Monroe's  ad- 
ministration was  the  most  opportune  for  the  promulgation  of 
such  a  doctrine  as  this.  His  was  pre-eminently  the  "era  of 
good  feeling,"  never  were  the  different  sections  of  the  coun- 
try more  thoroughly  united  and  more  in  unison.  Not  being 
distracted  with  internal  bickerings,  the  country  was  better 
able  to  guard  its  foreign  as  well  as  domestic  interests. 

It  could  present  a  more  solid  front  to  the  outside  world 
than  at  times  when  the  people  were  not  so  thoroughly  united. 
Although  the  United  States  was  then  young  and  compara- 
tively feeble,  nevertheless  with  her  incomparable  position, 
isolated,  and  surrounded  by  no  powerful  nations,  hers  was 
and  is  to-day  a  commanding  situation. 

The  United  States  is  careful  to  impress  upon  South  and 
Central  America  that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  not  intended 
as  a  shield  for  violations  of  international  laws.  Cleveland 
did  not  deny  the  right  of  the  British  to  land  marines  at 
Corinto,  Central  America;  nor  did  Eoosevelt  prevent  Eng- 
land, Germany  and  Italy  from  bombarding  Venezuelan  forts 
to  exact  a  money  indemnity,  where  no  territorial  seizure  was 
attempted. 


33 


Supplement. 

WHILE  the  Monroe  Doctrine  was  not  the  creation  of 
any  single  individual  but  a  growth  that  has  been 
commensurate  with  that  of  this  republic,  the  first  concrete 
expression  of  this  principle  is  found  in  the  statement  of 
Adams,  Monroe's  Secretary  of  State,  to  the  Russian  minister 
at  Washington,  Baron  Tuyl,  July  17,  1823,  "that  we  should 
assume  distinctly  the  principle  that  the  American  continents 
are  no  longer  subjects  for  any  new  European  colonial  estab- 
lishments." 

Although  an  enthusiastic  advocate  of  this  principle,  Adams 
nevertheless  questioned  Canning's  motives  in  this  matter. 
He  (Adams)  stated  in  his  diary,  "It  would  be  more  candid, 
as  well  as  more  dignified,  to  avow  our  principles  explicitly 
to  Russia  and  France,  than  to  come  in  as  a  cockboat  in  the 
wake  of  the  British  man-of-war."  He  realized  that  the  re- 
sponsibility for  any  measure  advocated  by  the  administration 
rests  primarily  with  the  President.  Secretary  Frelinghuysen 
expressed  it  as  "the  doctrine  formulated  by  Monroe  and  ex- 
pounded by  Adams."  As  Monroe  was  the  first  President  to 
send  such  a  message  to  Congress,  the  doctrine  is  very  appro- 
priately known  by  his  name. 

Jefferson  considered  Canning's  proposals  "more  important 
than  anything  that  has  happened  since  our  revolution";  he 
approved  them  with  a  view  of  pledging  Great  Britain  against 
the  Holy  Alliance,  which  was  hostile  to  all  liberal  govern- 
ment. 

Madison's  opinions  were  less  pronounced,  and  coincided 
with  Adams',  "that  this  movement  on  the  part  of  Great 

34 


Britain  is  impelled  more  by  her  interests  than  by  a  principle 
the  general  liberty." 

The  truth  of  Canning's  historical  boast  in  Parliament  has 
been  questioned,  that  he  "called  the  New  World  into  being 
to  redress  the  balance  of  the  Old."  It  is  stated  authorita- 
tively that  he  did  no  more  than  to  "throw  over  it  the  aegis 
of  Great  Britain/'  as  is  also  the  claim  that  the  independence 
of  South  America  was  "the  master-stroke  of  Canning." 

When  France  and  England,  in  1853,  asked  the  United 
States  to  publicly  avow  her  desire  for  permanent  Spanish 
ownership  of  Cuba,  Secretary  Everett  peremptorily  refused 
and  reminded  them  "that  the  question  affected  American 
and  not  European  policy." 

In  1870  President  Grant  stated  in  his  message  that  "the 
time  is  probably  not  far  distant  when,  in  the  natural  course 
of  events,  European  political  connection  with  this  continent 
will  cease." 

The  joint  control  by  England  and  the  United  States  of  the 
proposed  isthmian  canal,  agreed  to  in  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty,  was  a  source  of  constant  dissatisfaction,  being  dif- 
ferently interpreted  by  each  country.  It  was  finally  abro- 
gated under  Eoosevelt,  who  declared,  "In  order  that  no  ob- 
stacle might  stand  in  our  way,  Great  Britain  renounced  im- 
portant rights  under  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  and  agreed 
to  its  abrogation,  receiving  in  return  nothing  but  our  hon- 
orable pledge  to  build  the  canal  and  protect  it  as  an  open 
highway."  The  United  States,  therefore,  has  absolute  con- 
trol of  any  waterway  across  the  American  isthmus. 

The  more  discussion  there  is  had  as  to  the  European 
attitude  in  regard  to  our  civil  war,  the  more  the  fact  is  proven 
that  Eussia  alone,  of  all  the  great  powers,  befriended  the 
Union;  but,  as  the  Czar  admitted  to  an  American,  not  be- 
cause he  favored  republican  institutions,  but  solely  on  ac- 
count of  his  jealousy  of  Great  Britain,  commercially  as  well 
as  politically. 

35 


The  action  of  the  Hague  tribunal  in  delegating  to  the 
United  States  the  duty  of  enforcing  its  decisions  in  the  con- 
troversy between  Venezuela  and  the  European  powers,  vir- 
tually ratifies  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  and  gives  it  greater  recog- 
nition from  the  world  at  large  than  ever  before. 


Influence  of  the  United  States  on  Europe. 

NOT  only  is  the  American  Government  a  model  for  the 
Central  and  South  American  republics  but  it  has 
always  been  a  beacon-light  for  free  institutions  the  world 
over.  Every  country  on  the  globe  has  benefited  either  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  by  its  example.  At  first  considered  only 
an  experiment  it  is  now  acknowledged  everywhere  to  be  a 
demonstration,  a  living  proof  of  the  success  of  "government 
of  the  people,  for  the  people  and  by  the  people." 

When  Jefferson  wrote  the  Declaration  of  Independence  he 
"shook  every  throne  in  Europe/'  Realizing  this  fact,  the 
European  monarchies  never  ceased  their  attempts  until  re- 
cently to  effect  the  destruction  of  this  government.  Not  only 
did  England  utilize  the  Indian  savages  in  her  warfare  against 
the  United  States,  but  made  use  of  every  means  possible  to 
accomplish  her  ends.  During  the  Madison  administration 
Great  Britain  sent  a  secret  agent  to  Boston  to  engender  strife 
between  the  different  sections  of  this  country  and  to  breed 
discontent  with  the  government.  She  encouraged  the  English 
abolitionists  in  their  agitation  against  American  slavery, 
solely  for  the  purpose  of  dividing  the  north  and  south.  The 
ultimate  idea  of  France,  Spain  and  England,  in  destroying 
the  Mexican  republic,  evidently  was  to  have  monarchial  gov- 
ernments both  north  (Canada)  and  south  (Maximilian  Em- 
pire) of  the  United  States  and  the  Confederacy;  they  hoped 
thus  after  the  United  States  was  weakened  by  being  divided 
into  two  governments  to  take  advantage  of  any  opportunity 
to  subjugate  either  or  both  of  them. 

Although  Great  Britain  did  not  openly  assist  the  south, 
as  she  led  many  to  believe,  she  secretly  aided  the  secessionists 
to  such  an  extent  that  she  was  compelled  to  pay  the  United 

37 


States  fifteen  million-  dollars  in  damages  after  the  civil  war. 
Against  the  Union  cause,  during  the  war  between  the  states, 
the  European  powers,  with  the  exception  of  Russia,  were  a 
unit.  Of  course  this  was  not  so  much  the  sentiment  of  the 
common  people  as  of  the  ruling  classes  there. 

Both  England  and  her  possessions  benefited  by  the  influ- 
ence of  American  institutions,  for  her  colonies  immediately 
felt  its  effect  and  Great  Britain  also  later  on.  The  success 
of  popular  government  in  the  United  States  taught  England 
a  very  valuable  lesson  in  colonial  affairs;  so  much  so,  that 
Canada  and  Australia  are  practically  free  now.  In  fact  Eng- 
land is  now  so  democratized,  that  her  ancient  policies  are  so 
revolutionized,  with  the  House  of  Commons  ruling  her,  that 
she  has  ceased  those  insidious  plottings  against  foreign  na- 
tions. Her  policies  are  now  as  open,  democratic,  and  just  as 
are  the  American. 

To  Ireland  which  seems  to  be  the  last  of  the  countries 
under  British  dominion  to  reap  any  benefit  from  the  liberal 
laws  for  which  England  has  been  noted  so  long,  the  indirect 
benefit  of  republican  institutions  has  been  enormous.  The 
success  of  popular  rule  here  has  lessened  British  prejudice 
against  the  capacity  of  the  Irish  for  self-government  enough 
to  have  at  last  granted  them  home  rule. 

Not  only  in  her  possessions  but  even  at  home  England  has 
experienced  many  benefits  from  the  example  of  our  govern- 
mental system.  Formerly  it  was  the  classes  only  that  parti- 
cipated in  that  government;  now  it  is  also  the  masses,  for 
people  are  at  present  allowed  the  right  of  suffrage  there  that 
were  hitherto  considered  utterly  incapable  of  its  exercise. 

When  the  French  soldiers  returned  home  from  the  Ameri- 
can Revolutionary  war,  they  scattered  the  germs  of  repub- 
licanism not  only  over  France  but  eventually  throughout 
Europe.  Although  France  is  now  proverbial  for  her  peasant 
proprietorship,  the  miserable  condition  of  the  peasantry  there 
and  in  the  remainder  of  continental  Europe  may  be  under- 
stood when  it  is  remembered  that  at  the  time  of  the  Declara- 

38 


tion  of  American  Independence  one  hundred  and  fifty  thou- 
sand of  the  privileged  classes  in  France  owned  two-thirds  of 
the  soil;  and  the  remaining  twenty-five  millions  of  people 
had  only  one-third.  It  was  the  republican  ideas  from 
America  that  assisted  in  bringing  about  the  great  French 
revolution. 

When  Germany  and  other  countries  of  continental  Europe 
were  ground  down  under  the  iron  heels  of  despotic  princes 
and  kings,  Napoleon's  army  (although  in  one  sense  a 
scourge),  imbued  with  the  ideas  of  liberty  that  many  of 
them  obtained  in  America,  released  the  peasantry  to  some 
extent  from  their  intolerable  burdens.  At  the  time  of  the 
establishment  of  the  American  republic,  Europe,  with  the 
exception  of  Great  Britain  and  Switzerland,  was  practically 
a  despotism;  owing  partially  to  the  influence  of  popular 
government  in  the  United  States,  that  continent  has  im- 
proved wonderfully  in  political  affairs.  At  the  time  of  the 
World  War  Germany  was  the  Sphinx  of  the  world.  In  the 
very  forefront  among  the  nations  she  was  unsurpassed  edu- 
cationally, scientifically,  commercially  and  every  other  way, 
but  politically.  In  that  respect  she  was  woefully  behind  the 
times,  thus  occupying  a  most  anomalous  position.  It  is  hoped 
that  with  the  German  people  more  advanced  politically,  as 
they  are  otherwise,  there  will  be  less  fear  for  the  peace  of 
the  world. 

The  United  States  by  becoming  a  "world  power,"  in  the 
estimation  of  many  people,  loses  her  right  to  insist  on  the 
Monroe  Doctrine.  They  believe  that  consistency  compels 
her  either  to  refrain  from  "meddling"  in  the  affairs  of  the 
"old  world,"  or  allow  other  powers  to  do  the  same  in  this 
hemisphere.  But  they  should  remember  that  progressive 
countries  are  more  inclined  to  broaden  their  policies  than  to 
contract  them.  The  great  modern  inventions  have  so 
changed  conditions  that  they  have  not  only  almost  anni- 
hilated space,  making  all  peoples  of  the  world  practically 
neighbors,  but  have  forced  us  in  self-defense  to  leave  our 

39 


former  seclusion  and  participate  more  in  the  political  affairs 
of  the  world.  For  whatever  affects  the  politics  of  a  country 
indirectly  affects  its  commerce.  Although  we  may  not  take  a 
direct  interest  in  the  concerns  of  China,  for  instance,  when- 
ever its  governmental  policy  is  so  manipulated  as  to  injure 
our  trade  with  that  country  we  are  of  necessity  forced  into 
the  matter,  to  the  extent  of  protecting  ourselves. 

While  the  United  States  has  increased  wonderfully  in 
population  and  territory,  no  less  wonderful  is  her  financial 
record ;  she  has  the  greatest  wealth  and  the  least  indebtedness 
of  any  first-class  power. 


40 


Life  of  President  James  Monroe. 

JAMES  MONROE,  the  fifth  President  of  the  United 
States,  was  born  on  the  28th  of  April,,  1758  in  West- 
moreland County,  Virginia;  his  parents  were  Spence  and 
Elizabeth  (nee  Jones)  Monroe,  also  natives  of  that  state; 
they  were  said  to  have  descended  from  a  family  of  Scotch 
cavaliers  who  traced  their  ancestry  to  Hector  Monroe,  a 
captain  in  the  army  of  King  Charles  I.  This  family  settled 
at  an  early  period  in  Virginia  with  other  cavalier  immi- 
grants. 

At  an  early  age  the  future  President  showed  great  deci- 
sion of  character.  He  was  a  student  at  William  and  Mary 
College  in  Virginia  when  the  revolutionary  war  commenced; 
he  left  college  and  volunteered  as  a  cadet  in  the  continental 
army  and  was  present  at  several  battles.  He  participated  in 
the  New  Jersey  engagements  of  1776  and  was  wounded  in 
the  retreat  through  that  state,  serving  as  Lieutenant ;  he  was 
then  promoted  to  Captain  of  infantry. 

Upon  recovery  he  was  placed  as  aid-de-camp  on  the  staff 
of  General  William  Alexander  (Lord  Stirling)  with  the 
rank  of  Major,,  where  he  served  until  the  following  year  with 
distinction.  Upon  the  recommendation  of  General  Wash- 
ington he  was  appointed  Colonel.  In  1780  Jefferson  dele- 
gated him  to  visit  the  army  in  South  Carolina  on  an  im- 
portant mission. 

Returning  to  his  native  state  he  studied  law  with  Jefferson, 
who  was  then  Governor  of  Virginia;  so  intimate  did  Monroe 
become  with  Jefferson  and  Madison  that  they  influenced  his 
future  political  course  to  a  great  extent.  He  was  elected  to 
the  Virginia  Assembly  by  King  George  County  in  1782  and 
was  chosen  by  that  body  a  member  of  the  Executive  Council 

41 


of  State.  In  1783  he  was  selected  as  a  delegate  to  the  Con- 
tinental Congress  and  remained  a  member  until  1786, 
actively  participating  in  the  framing  of  the  new  constitution. 
While  a  member  of  Congress  he  married  Miss  Kortright  of 
New  York  City. 

At  the  expiration  of  his  congressional  term  he  engaged 
in  the  practice  of  law  at  Fredericksburg,  Va.,  but  was  almost 
immeu  lately  elected  to  the  State  Legislature.  He  was 
chosen  in  1788  as  a  delegate  to  the  State  Convention  as- 
sembled to  consider  the  Federal  Constitution;  dreading  the 
too-centralized  power  of  the  Federal  Government,  he,  to- 
gether with  Patrick  Henry  and  other  states-rights  advocates, 
opposed  in  the  Virginia  Convention  of  1788  the  adoption  of 
the  constitution. 

After  the  formation  of  the  new  government  he  was  a  can- 
didate for  Congress  against  Madison  but  was  defeated.  The 
Legislature  of  the  state  elected  him  to  the  United  States 
Senate  in  1790  in  the  place  of  William  Gray  son,  deceased; 
true  to  his  states-rights  views  he  actively  opposed  the  Fed- 
eralist administration  of  Washington,  remaining  in  the  Sen- 
ate three  years.  Although  an  opponent  of  his  administration 
Washington  appointed  him  Minister  to  France,  to  succeed 
the  Federalist,  Gouveneur  Morris,  whose  recall  the  French 
Government  requested.  Washington  hoped  to  appease  that 
government  by  his  appointment  of  an  anti-Federalist,  as 
France  suspected  the  partiality  of  the  Federalist  element  of 
the  administration  towards  England.  It  was  supposed  that 
the  former  confidential  relations  of  the  two  countries  would 
be  restored  by  the  selection  of  Monroe;  it  was  also  expected 
to  soothe  the  feelings  of  that  portion  of  the  American  people 
who  thought  that  France  was  due  more  recompense  than  had 
been  given  her  for  the  assistance  rendered  in  the  revolution- 
ary war. 

France  received  Monroe  cordially  as  a  representative  of 
the  political  party  in  America  supposed  to  be  in  full  accord 
with  that  country.  He  proved  so  enthusiastic  in  his  French 

42 


sympathies  that  the  administration  was  afraid  that  he  might 
compromise  the  neutral  position  assumed  by  the  United 
State  toward  the  European  powers. 

John  Jay  had  concluded  a  treaty  with  Great  Britain  at 
which  France  took  great  offense,  claiming  it  to  be  in  viola- 
tion of  her  treaty  of  1778  with  the  United  States.  Wash- 
ington and  his  cabinet,  thinking  that  Monroe  should  have 
allayed  the  strained  relations  between  the  United  States  and 
France,  recalled  him  in  1796.  Feeling  aggrieved  at  this 
treatment,  he  issued  a  pamphlet  of  about  five  hundred  pages, 
called  the  "View,"  defending  his  actions  in  the  matter. 
Shortly  after  his  return  to  America  he  was  again  elected  to 
the  Legislature. 

The  French  or  Democratic  party  in  Virginia  believing 
Monroe  to  have  been  sacrificed  for  his  devotion  to  liberal 
principles  made  him  Governor  in  1799  to  which  office  he  was 
re-elected. 

He  was  sent  in  1802  by  President  Jefferson  to  Paris  to 
negotiate  with  B.  E.  Livingston  the  purchase  of  New 
Orleans.  They  succeeded  so  well  that  they  acquired  the  en- 
tire territory  known  as  the  Louisiana  Purchase  and  with 
such  little  difficulty  that  the  whole  transaction  was  accom- 
plished in  about  two  weeks. 

Monroe  was  soon  afterwards  appointed  Minister  to  Eng- 
land to  replace  Eufus  King.  He  went  in  1804  to  Spain  for 
the  purpose  of  buying  Florida;  failing  in  this,  in  1805  he 
returned  to  England.  In  1806  he  undertook  with  William 
Pinkney  to  procure  a  new  treaty  with  Great  Britain  in  place 
of  the  one  negotiated  by  Jay;  they  succeeded  in  arranging 
with  the  British  commissioners,  Lords  Auckland  and  Howick, 
another  treaty  more  favorable  to  the  United  States  than  the 
previous  one.  But  as  it  did  not  prevent  England  from  im- 
pressing American  seamen  into  the  British  service,  it  was 
not  submitted  to  the  Senate  for  ratification,  but  was  returned 
for  revision.  Monroe  was  very  much  provoked  at  this  action 
of  the  administration.  As  Foreign  Secretary  Canning,  who 

43 


succeeded  Fox,  refused  to  negotiate  further,  Monroe  returned 
to  the  United  States  and  published,  in  defense  of  his  actions 
in  this  matter,  another  pamphlet. 

Although  Virginia  declared  in  1808  in  favor  of  Monroe 
for  the  Presidency,  he  withdrew  his  name  after  it  was 
brought  forward  by  his  friends.  He  was  elected  to  the  State 
Legislature  once  more  in  1810  and  in  1811  he  was  chosen 
Governor.  Jefferson  having  healed  the  political  breach  be- 
tween him  and  his  opponents,  Madison  selected  him  this  year 
for  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State  in  place  of  Robert  Smith, 
where  he  wras  instrumental  in  bringing  on  the  war  of  1812 
with  England. 

As  Brigadier  General  Armstrong  retired  after  the  capture 
and  devastation  of  Washington  City,  the  duties  of  the  war  as 
well  as  of  the  state  department  were  assumed  by  Monroe, 
who  conducted  them  with  much  more  energy  than  had  been 
heretofore  done  by  the  Democratic-Republican  party. 

In  1816  he  was  chosen  President  by  128  electoral  votes 
against  34  and  in  1820  was  re-elected  practically  without 
opposition,  such  being  his  popularity  at  that  time  that  only 
one  electoral  vote  was  cast  against  him.  His  eight  years  as 
President  are  historically  known  as  "the  era  of  good  feeling," 
the  old  issues  having  practically  died  out  and  the  new  ones 
not  yet  been  formed.  Those  able  leaders,  John  C.  Calhoun, 
John  Quincy  Adams,  William  Wirt  and  W.  H.  Crawford 
were  selected  for  his  cabinet. 

The  country  had  long  been  injured  by  foreign  troubles 
and  President  Monroe  saw  the  opportunity  for  benefiting  the 
nation.  He  succeeded  in  arranging  the  boundary  lines  of  the 
Louisiana  Purchase  and  in  negotiating  the  acquisition  of 
Florida  from  Spain;  he  also  settled  the  vexatious  slavery  ex- 
tension question  by  the  Missouri  compromise.  But  of  course, 
his  greatest  claim  to  fame  and  popularity  rests  on  the  pro- 
mulgation of  his  famous  doctrine;  he  is  also  known  for  his 
recognition  of  the  independence  of  the  Central  and  South 
American  States. 

44 


How  devoted  he  was  to  popular  governments  and  how  true 
he  was  to  his  principles  can  be  seen  in  no  better  way  than 
in  his  constant  watchfulness  over  the  American  republics  as 
evinced  in  his  messages  to  Congress  both  before  and  after  the 
promulgation  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 

In  his  first  annual  message,  2  Dec.  1817,  he  states: 

"It  was  anticipated  at  an  early  stage  that  the  contest  be- 
tween Spain  and  the  colonies  would  become  highly  interest- 
ing to  the  United  States.  It  was  natural  that  our  citizens 
should  sympathize  in  events  that  affected  our  neighbors.  It 
seemed  probable  also  that  the  prosecution  of  the  conflict 
along  our  coast  and  in  contiguous  countries  would  occasion- 
ally interrupt  our  commerce  and  otherwise  affect  the  persons 
and  property  of  our  citizens.  These  anticipations  have  been 
realized.  Such  injuries  have  been  received  from  persons  act- 
ing under  authority  of  both  the  parties  and  for  which  redress 
has  in  most  instances  been  withheld.  Through  every  stage 
of  the  conflict  the  United  States  have  maintained  an  im- 
partial neutrality,  giving  aid  to  neither  of  the  parties  in  men, 
money,  ships  or  munitions  of  war. 

"They  have  regarded  the  contest  not  in  the  light  of  an  ordi- 
nary insurrection  or  rebellion,,  but  as  a  civil  war  between 
parties  nearly  equal,  having  as  to  neutral  powers  equal  rights. 
Our  ports  have  been  open  to  both,  and  every  article,  the  fruit 
of  our  soil  or  the  industry  of  our  citizens,  which  either  was 
permitted  to  take,  has  been  equally  free  to  the  other. 
Should  the  colonies  establish  their  independence,  it  is  proper 
now  to  state  that  this  government  neither  seeks  nor  would 
accept  from  them  any  advantage  in  commerce  or  otherwise 
which  will  not  be  equally  open  to  all  other  nations.  The 
colonies  will  in  that  event  become  independent  states,  free 
from  any  obligation  to  or  connection  with  us  which  it  may 
not  then  be  to  their  interest  to  form  on  the  basis  of  a  fair 
reciprocity. 

"In  the  civil  war  existing  between  Spain  and  the  Spanish 
provinces  in  this  hemisphere  the  greatest  care  has  been  taken 

45 


to  enforce  the  laws  intended  to  preserve  an  impartial  neu- 
trality. Our  ports  have  continued  to  be  equally  open  to  both 
parties  and  on  the  same  conditions,  and  our  citizens  have 
been  equally  restrained  from  interfering  in  favor  of  either  to 
the  prejudice  of  the  other.  The  progress  of  the  war  however 
has  operated  manifestly  in  favor  of  the  colonies.  *  *  * 

"This  contest  has  from  its  commencement  been  very  inter- 
esting to  other  powers  and  to  none  more  so  than  to  the 
United  States.  A  virtuous  people  may  and  will  confine  them- 
selves within  the  limit  of  a  strict  neutrality ;  but  it  is  not  in 
their  power  to  behold  a  conflict  so  vitally  important  to  their 
neighbors  without  the  sensibility  and  sympathy  which 
naturally  belong  to  such  a  case.  It  has  been  the  steady  pur- 
pose of  this  Government  to  prevent  that  feeling  leading  to 
excess,  and  it  is  very  gratifying  to  have  it  in  my  power  to 
state  that  so  strong  has  been  the  sense  throughout  the  whole 
community  of  what  was  due  to  the  character  and  obligations 
of  the  nation  that  very  few  examples  of  a  contrary  kind  have 
occurred. 

"The  distance  of  the  colonies  from  the  parent  country  and 
the  great  extent  of  their  population  and  resources  gave  them 
advantages  which  it  was  anticipated  at  a  very  early  period 
would  be  difficult  for  Spain  to  surmount.  The  steadiness, 
consistency  and  success  with  which  they  have  pursued  their 
object  as  evinced  more  particularly  by  the  undisturbed  sov- 
ereignty which  Buenos  Ayres  has  so  long  enjoyed,  evidently 
give  them  a  strong  claim  to  the  favorable  consideration  of 
other  nations.  These  sentiments  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States  have  not  been  withheld  from  other  powers  with  whom 
it  is  desirable  to  act  in  concert. 

"Should  it  become  manifest  to  the  world  that  the  efforts  of 
Spain  to  subdue  these  provinces  will  be  fruitless,  it  may  be 
presumed  that  the  Spanish  Government  itself  will  give 
up  the  contest.  In  producing  such  a  determination  it  cannot  be 
doubted  that  the  opinion  of  friendly  powers  who  have  taken 
no  part  in  the  controversy  will  have  their  merited  influence/' 

46 


Unquestionably  it  is  owing  more  to  Monroe  than  to  any 
other  one  man  that  the  Latin  republics  were  preserved  from 
destruction,,  for  he  was  constantly  on  the  alert  to  protect  their 
interests.  In  almost  all  of  his  messages  he  shows  his  interest 
in  their  success.  He  states  in  his  Fourth  Annual  Message 
14  November,  1820 : 

"The  contest  between  Spain  and  the  colonies,  according  to 
the  most  authentic  information,  is  maintained  by  the  latter 
with  improved  success.  The  unfortunate  divisions  which 
were  known  to  exist  some  time  since  at  Buenos  Ayres  it  is 
understood  still  prevail.  In  no  part  of  South  America  has 
Spain  made  any  impression  on  the  colonies,  while  in  many 
parts  and  particularly  in  Venezuela  and  New  Granada,  the 
colonies  have  gained  strength  and  acquired  reputation  both 
for  the  management  of  the  war  in  which  they  have  been  suc- 
cessful and  for  the  order  of  the  internal  administration.  The 
late  change  in  the  government  of  Spain,  by  the  re-establish- 
ment of  the  constitution  of  1812,  is  an  event  which  promises 
to  be  favorable  to  the  revolution.  Under  the  authority  of  the 
Cortes  the  Congress  of  Angostura  was  invited  to  open  a  ne- 
gotiation for  the  settlement  of  differences  between  the 
parties,  to  which  it  was  replied  that  they  would  willingly  open 
the  negotiation  provided  the  acknowledgement  of  their  inde- 
pendence was  made  its  basis  but  not  otherwise.  Of  further 
proceedings  between  them  we  are  uninformed. 

"No  facts  are  known  to  this  government  to  warrant  the  be- 
lief that  any  of  the  powers  of  Europe  will  take  part  in  the 
contest,  whence  it  may  be  inferred,  considering  all  circum- 
stances which  must  have  weight  in  producing  the  result,  that 
an  adjustment  will  finally  take  place  on  the  basis  proposed 
by  the  colonies.  To  promote  that  result  by  friendly  counsels, 
with  other  powers,  including  Spain  herself,  has  been  the  uni- 
form policy  of  this  government."'  That  his  vigilance  suffered 
no  diminution  is  clearly  seen  by  his  eighth  annual  message 
(after  the  Monroe  Doctrine  proper  was  promulgated). 

47 


EIGHTH  ANNUAL  MESSAGE  DECEMBER  7.  1824. 

"In  turning  our  attention  to  the  condition  of  the  civilized 
world,  in  which  the  United  States  have  always  taken  a  deep 
interest,  it  is  gratifying  to  see  how  large  a  portion  of  it  is 
blessed  with  peace.  The  only  wars  which  now  exist  within 
that  limit  are  those  between  Turkey  and  Greece,  in  Europe 
and  between  Spain  and  the  new  governments,  our  neighbors, 
in  this  hemisphere.  In  both  these  wars  the  cause  of  inde- 
pendence, of  liberty  and  humanity  continues  to  prevail.  *  *  * 

"With  respect  to  the  contest  to  which  our  neighbors  are  a 
party,  it  is  evident  that  Spain  as  a  power  is  scarcely  felt  in  it. 
These  new  states  had  completely  achieved  their  independence 
before  it  was  acknowledged  by  the  United  States  and  they 
have  since  maintained  it  with  little  foreign  pressure.  The  dis- 
turbances which  have  appeared  in  certain  portions  of  that 
vast  territory  have  proceeded  from  internal  causes,  which 
had  their  origin  in  their  former  governments  and  have  not 
yet  been  thoroughly  removed. 

"It  is  manifest  that  these  causes  are  daily  losing  effect  and 
that  these  new  states  are  settling  down  under  governments 
elective  and  representative  in  every  branch,  similar  to  our 
own.  In  this  course  we  ardently  wish  them  to  persevere, 
under  a  firm  conviction  that  it  will  promote  their  happiness. 
In  this  their  career,  however,  we  have  not  interfered,  be- 
lieving that  every  people  have  a  right  to  institute  for  them- 
selves the  government  which,  in  their  judgment,  may  suit 
them  best. 

"Our  example  is  before  them,  of  the  good  effect  of  which, 
being  our  neighbors,  they  are  competent  judges,  and  to 
their  judgment  we  leave  it  in  the  expectation  that  other 
powers  will  pursue  the  same  policy.  The  deep  interest  which 
we  take  in  their  independence,  which  we  have  acknowledged, 
and  in  their  enjoyment  of  all  the  rights  incident  thereto,  es- 
pecially in  the  very  important  one  of  instituting  their  own 
governments,  has  been  declared  and  is  known  to  the  world. 

48 


"Separated  as  we  are  from  Europe  by  the  great  Atlantic 
Ocean,  we  can  have  no  concern  in  the  wars  of  the  European 
Governments  nor  in  the  causes  which  produce  them.  The 
balance  of  power  between  them,,  into  whichever  scale  it  may 
turn  in  its  various  vibrations,  cannot  affect  us. 

"It  is  the  interest  of  the  United  States  to  preserve  the  most 
friendly  relations  with  every  power  and  on  conditions  fair, 
equal  and  applicable  to  all.  But  in  regard  to  our  neighbors 
our  situation  is  different.  It  is  impossible  for  the  European 
Governments  to  interfere  in  their  concerns,  especially  in  those 
alluded  to,  which  are  vital,  without  affecting  us;  indeed  the 
motive  which  might  induce  such  interference  in  the  present 
state  of  the  war  between  the  parties,  if  a  war  it  may  be  called, 
would  appear  to  be  equally  applicable  to  us.  It  is  gratifying 
to  know  that  some  of  the  powers  with  whom  we  enjoy  a  very 
friendly  intercourse,  and  to  whom  these  views  have  been 
communicated,  have  appeared  to  acquiesce  in  them/' 

After  Monroe's  retirement  from  the  Presidency  he  accepted 
the  office  of  Justice  of  the  Peace  at  his  old  home  Oak  Hill, 
Loud  on  County,  Va. ;  while  there  he  took  great  interest  in 
the  University  of  Virginia,  visiting  it  constantly. 

At  his  death,  4  July  1831,  in  New  York,  he  left  two 
daughters  Mrs.  Hay  and  Mrs.  Samuel  S.  Gouverneur  who 
resided  in  that  city  and  with  the  latter  of  whom  he  lived. 
To  these  daughters  he  left  a  considerable  fortune  derived 
from  an  uncle  and  from  grants  of  Congress.  In  1858  his 
remains  were  removed  from  New  York  to  Richmond,  Va. 

While  Monroe  was  no  orator,  he  was  a  man  of  exalted 
character,  sound  judgment,  great  firmness  and  energy  to- 
gether with  gentle  manners  and  steadfast  purpose.  His  ex- 
cessive generosity  kept  him  constantly  in  debt,  being  known 
as  a  poor  manager  of  his  own  private  affairs.  His  name  will 
always  be  enshrined  in  history  as  one  of  our  greatest  Presi- 
dents and  a  true  exponent  of  popular  rights. 


49 


SOME  COMMENTS 


"I  have  read  the  exposition  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  with  much  pleasure  and 
satisfaction.  I  think  it  is  a  clear  and  excellent  statement  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine." 
— OOL.  GBO.  A.  MERCER,  President  Board  of  Education. 


"One  cannot  read  the  HISTORY  OF  THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE  without  wishing  to 
permanently  preserve  the  pamphlet.  Down  to  the  admission  of  the  German  Premier, 
'that  there  were  no  means  for  eliminating  the  United  States  from  the  controversy 
of  the  European  powers  with  Venezuela,'  it  embraces  State  documents  and  dis- 
cussions of  extraordinary  interest,  illuminated  by  careful  arrangement  and  thought- 
ful commentaries." — JUDGE  A.  H.  MAODONELL. 


UNITED  STATES  SENATE, 
COMMITTEE  ON  TERRITORIES. 
Washington,  D.  C.,  February  6,   1906. 

In  behalf  of  Senator  Beveridge,  I  beg  leave  to  acknowledge  with  thanks  the 
receipt  of  the  pamphlet  compiled  by  you,  giving  the  history  of  the  MONROE  DOC- 
TRINE. I  have  been  requested  to  ask  where  I  could  obtain  a  few  additional  copies. 
If  you  will  advise  me,  I  shall  appreciate  the  favor. 

Very  truly  yours, 

THOMAS  R.   SHIPP, 

Secretary  to  Senator  Beveridge. 


"This  is  a  valuable  reference  publication  for  writers  and  orators  who  wish  to 
discuss  the  Monroe  Doctrine  now  so  conspicuous  in  the  public  press  and  on  the 
rostrum." — MAJOR  SIDNEY  HERBERT. 


"It  contains   nothing  that  could   possibly  be  omitted  in   any  consideration  of 
the  matter,  and  omits  but  little  of  importance." — CHICAGO  DAILY  NEWS. 


"This  is  one  of  the  most  complete  and  satisfactory  discussions  of  this  great 
question  it  has  been  our  privilege  to  review." — DUBLIN  TIMES. 


"This  pamphlet  is  intended  to  explain  to  the  American  people  the  policy  known 
better  by  its  name  than  its  operation  or  its  meaning.  The  author  shows  an  intense 
interest  in  the  subject.  This  subject  is  bound  to  be  of  interest  politically  at  all 
future  times  to  the  inhabitants  of  this  hemisphere." — WORCESTER  (MASS.)  SPY. 


'A  very  interesting  and  valuable  booklet." — SAVANNAH  PRESS. 


"An  interesting  pamphlet,  well  worth  reading,  since  it  contains  about  all  that 
is  worth  knowing  of  the  history  of  the  MONHOE  DOCTRINE  ;  a  work  that  every  one 
should  have  in  his  library.  The  writer  evidently  understood  his  subject." — SAVAN- 
NAH NEWS. 


3     New   Hampshire   State    Library, 
(  CONCORD,  Jan.  12,  1904. 

My  Dear  Sir:— 

I  shall  greatly  appreciate  it  if  you  will  kindly  send  to  this  library  a  copy  of 
your  pamphlet  upon  the  MONROE  DOCTRINE  for  permanent  preservation  upon*  our 
shelves.  Thanking  you  in  advance  for  your  courtesy  in  this  matter,  believe  me 

Yours  very  truly, 

ARTHUR  H.  CHASE,  Librarian. 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ROCHESTER,  AUG.  24,  1903. 
SIR:— 

I  am  directed  to  return  to  you  the  thanks  of  the  University  of  Rochester  for 
your  courteous  gift  (THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE),  which  has  been  received,  accepted 
and  placed  in  the  University  Library. 

Very  respectfully, 

CHARLES  HOEING,  Librarian. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


x^  • 

5Jan'<53Ct 

_-.~.r-v      '         > 

*»H 

'  D 

r\r  •.-   E?     ~<  ~ 

Mi-  i  •  1  7  1QPP 

MAY  1  R  Wfi? 

ufcu  1  1  laot. 

j  i  HOARY   nS^ 

LHin^^ 

7^1963 

f  tB     o  I30Q 

5^C7 

5  'D 

—  ni59     ^ 

ttfta 

REC  ^  t» 

—  —_.  .      mci 

'^OJ 

FEB  i  5  law 

22^«'8&i* 

REC'D  LD 

MAR  24  1963 

LD  21A-50m-12,'60 
(B6221slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


YB  06461 


